*!..r+A,-* , -. 

: - .' 

, .. - * 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMKICE- x.-C* 4-- 

.Le&dLK 2% '~ational Oceanic , ;&. ~-hibs~heri&mh ~ -. rbib~ , , . 

".i..;.,r;d-,- ,.,, 2.34 .:?.;# 

Nat~anal Marine ,. . iiihe~~sr~~','~~~.., .;,*,MA*.-?- ;, ,.< .-. ,. ,<.," .<,. -,La:,, :*",, :>-, >< !. 

. . I.. . , ; P - -4 . d .- . . , $< ::- ,+ - - - . ,. --' /, >:'" 'F, 

:.,k I, 

, /,,- --; ..& ,< ,** , C... 

. . . - . ,' 9. a w:7, + .,.....- - ' --. .'--,w<+ 

+ :., . , - - .-w.. - < 

+ _..- . ..-. .&& * . - . . 5,L,. , , -,-. .. .- " '4 ,. . 

i.- . -' I- -. . ., *C,...- - , - .,,> "4 

,"*rr 'T . \-. , 
Cover: A pair of California sea lions from the Galapagos Islands, 

Ecuador, population. Photo by Mike Gosliner, Fisheries 

General Counsel Off ice, NOAA. 
Annual Report 

Marine Mammal 

Protection Act 

of 1972 

April 1, 1984 to March 31, 1985 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCiE 

Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Anthony J. Calio, Acting Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

William G. Gordon. Assistant Administrator 
"HE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE 

D.C. 20230 

JUL '1 1 1985 

President of the Senate 

Speaker of the House of Representatives 

Sirs: 

I am pleased to submit the Annual Report elf the Department of 

Commerce regarding the administration of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972 for the period April 1, 1984 through 

March 31, 1985, as required by section 103(£) of the Act. 

The Department of Commerce is responsible for irr~plementing 

the Act with respect to whales and porpoises of the order 

Cetacea and seals and sea lions of the sutlorder Pinnipedia. 

The report details the activities of the Department regarding 

these marine mammals. 

Sincerely, 

Secretary of Commerce 4 

Enclosure 
Contents 

Introduction .............................................. 1 

Summary ................................................... 2 

1984 Amendments to the Act ................................ 6 

Part I-Administrative Programs .............................. 8 

Permits for the Incidental Taking of Marine Mammals 

During Commercial Fishing Operations .................... 8 

Authorizations that Allow a Small Take of Marine 

Mammals ................................................. 8 

Permits for Scientific Research and Public Display ........ 10 

Transfer of Marine Mammal Management to the States ........ 11 

Regional Marine Mammal Stranding Networks ................. 12 

Marine Mammal and Fisheries Interactions .................. 16 

Law Enforcement ........................................... 19 

Legal Actions ............................................. 20 

Part 11-International Programs and Activities ............... 27 

International Whaling Commission .......................... 27 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission ................... 29 

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission .......... 30 

North Pacific Fur Seal Commission ......................... 31 

U.S.-U.S.S.R. Marine Mammal Project ....................... 32 

Part 111-Management and Research Programs ................... 34 

Alaska Region. Northwest Region. National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory. Northwest & Alaska Fisheries Center ......... 34 

Southwest Region. Southwest Fisheries Center .............. 38 

Southeast Region. Southeast Fisheries Center .............. 45 

Northeast Region. Northeast Fisheries Center .............. 46 

Part IV-~ppendix ............................................ 50 

Permit Tables 

IWC Quotas 

Population Estimates 
Harbor seal on haulout site along the California coast 

(Santa Barbara County) . Photo by Dana Seagars, NMFS. 
Passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA or the 

Act) in 1972 committed the United States to long-term 

management and research programs to conserve and protect these 

animals. With few exceptions, the Act placed a moratorium on 

taking or importing marine mammals or their products into the 

United States. In 1976, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MFCMA) expanded U.S. control of marine mammals 

to include the 200-mile fishery cons<?rvation zone ( FCZ ) . 

The Act delegates authority and responsibility for oceanic 

marine mammals to the Secretary of the Agency where the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

operates. Species of the order Cetacea (whales and dolphins) 

and the order Carnivora, suborder Pinnipedia (seals and sea 

lions) , are the responsibility of NOiJA's National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Department of the Interior is 

responsible for the dugong, manatee, polar bear, sea otter, and 

walrus. 

Marine mammals that are already managed under 

international agreements, such as the northern fur seal, are 

exempt as long as the agreements further tlne purposes of the 

Act. Marine mammals may be taken for scientific research, 

public display, and incidental to commercial fishing. The 1981 

amendments to the Act added two categories of "small take" to 
the moratorium exception; one is for commercial fishing and the 

other applies to other activities such as oil and gas 

exploration. Also, certain natives of Alask'a may take marine 

mammals for subsistence use and production of handicrafts. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service grants or denies 

requests for exemptions, issues permits, carries out research 

and management programs, enforces the Act, participates in 

international programs, and issues rul'es and regulations to 

carry out its mission to conserve and protect marine mammals. 

Also, WMFS cooperates with the States, conservation 

organizations, the public, other Federal agencies, the Marine 

Mammal Commission, and many constituent groups including 

scientific researchers and the public display community. 

NMFS's marine mammal research programs are the 

responsibility of the National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML), 

Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Seattle, Wash.; the 

Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, Mass.; the Southeast 

Fisheries Center, Miami, Fla.; and the Southwest Fisheries 

Center, La Jolla, Calif. Management programs are the 

responsibility of the Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska; the 

Northeast Region, Gloucester, Mass. ; the Northwest Region, 

Seattle, Wash.; the Southeast Region, St. Petersburg, Fla.; and 

the Southwest Region, Terminal Island, Calif. 

This annual report to Congress is available from the 

Office of Protected Species and Habitat Conservation, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 20235. 

SUMMARY 

The MMPA is one of the principal wildlife conservation and 

management Acts administered by the Federal Government. NMFS 

has dedicated significant resources over the years to the study 

of marine mammal populations, life cycmles and reproductive 

capacities to broaden our knowledge of these species. 

Also, since the Act directs NOAA to use international 

agreements to further the protection and conservation of marine 

mammals, we are active members of many international groups. 

One of the primary organizations that the United States uses to 

further these aims is the Internationa.1 Whaling Commission. At 

the 36th Annual Meeting in 1984, the IWC continued its support 
of the commercial whaling moratorium that it voted for in 

1982. The IWC set commercial catch Limits that represent a 30 

percent reduction from the 1983 limits and an 85 percent 

reduction from those in force in 1973. Also, the IWC did not 

change the 1984-85 quota of 43 strikes for the Bering Sea stock 

of bowhead whales which are harvested by Allaskan Eskimos for 

subsistence uses. The Eskimos used 25 strikes during the 1984 

season. 

Some of the issues that brought about passage of the Act 

have been successfully resolved. In 1984, the Congress, in 

recognition of the progress made in reducing the number of 

porpoises killed in the U.S. purse-seine fishery for yellowfin 

tuna, reauthorized for an indefinite period the general permit 

held by the American Tunaboat Association; this permit allows 

an annual take of 20,500 porpoises. However, Congress 

strengthened the Act so that foreign nations exporting tuna 

into the United States must provide evidence that they have 

adopted a regulatory program that is comparrable to the U.S. 

program for reducing the incidental take of marine mammals in 

commercial fisheries. 

Over the years, many of the legal actions that involve the 

Act concern the agency's rulemakings regarding the take of 

porpoise in the yellowfin tuna fishery. In January 1984, the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier court 

decision which had invalidated the NNFS regulation requiring 

observers on tunaboats. In April 1984, representatives of the 

tuna fishing fleet filed a petition requesting a review of this 

decision by the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court 

denied the petition in June 1984, br:~nging this litigation to a 

close and allowing NMFS to resume its; observer program to 

monitor the take of dolphins in the purse seine fishery for 

tuna. In another legal action, a group of environmental 

organizations sought to stop the 19811 harvest of northern fur 

seals on the Pribilof Island because they believed it violated 

the MMPA. The harvest is conducted under provisions of the 

Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals 

and the Fur Seal Act. The judge found that the Convention and 

the Fur Seal Act take precedence over the MMPA. 

One problem that has not been resolved since passage of 

the Act is the interaction between marine mammals and the 

fishery resource. Marine mammals and fishermen of ten compete 

for the same resource. Currently, we are studying the 

incidental catch of northern sea lions in the Shelikof Strait, 

Alaska; damage done to fish and fishing gear by seals and sea 

lions on the West Coast and the potential impact seals and sea 
lions may have on free swimming salmonids in rivers and 

estuaries in the Northwest. 

Although commercial fishermen may obtain a Certificate of 

Inclusion (under a General Permit) to take marine mammals that 

interfere with their catch, current regulations do not allow 

commercial passenger fishing vessels (CPFVs) to harass marine 

mammals interacting with their passenger's catch. In response 

to a petition from the Sportfishing Association of California, 

NMFS has issued a proposal to modify the definition of 

commercial fishing operations to include CPFVs. Final 

regulations are expected to be issued by September 1985. 

One of the most extensive administrative programs in NMFS 

is the permit system that authorizes the taking of marine 

mammals for scientific research and public display. This 

agency not only reviews and decides whether to issue the 

requested permits, but continues to monitor the permits as long 

as they are valid. Currently, NMFS is monitoring 332 permits 

for scientific research and public display. 

Another highly visible NMFS program is the Regional Marine 

Mammal Stranding Network. Four NMFS Regions have fully 

operational networks and Alaska is establishing one at this 

time. The networks include individuals and organizations that 

have volunteered to cooperate with NMFS when there is a 

stranding. As an example of the work carried out by a 

stranding network, participants in the Northwest Network 

investigated over 400 marine mammals strandings in Washington 

and Oregon in 1984. The Southwest Region network uses 

computerized data to spot trends in strandings. (See Cetacean 

Strandings Table for this Region). 

The provisions of the Act are enforced by special agents 

from NMFS and by State agents under ccntract to NMFS. This 

past year, documented violations included un.lawfu1 taking or 

harassment of marine mammals. Also, agents seized 566 items 

that are illegal under the Act. Illegal items often include 

marine mammal parts or products that are brought into the 

United States. 

The actual management and researc~h programs for marine 

mammals are carried out in the NMFS Regional Offices and 

Fisheries Centers located along the east and west coasts, 

Hawaii, and the Gulf of Mexico. The Alaska Region manages and 

enforces the subsistence hunt of bowhead wha~les, monitors the 

population of humpback whales in Southeast Alaska, and 

administers the seal rookeries and oversees the annual seal 
harvest on the Prlbilof Islands. The Northiwest Regional Off ice 

in Seattle is primarily involved with programs that concern 

marine mammal and fishery interact ions. The National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory at the Northwest and Alaska ~isheries Center 

is primarily concerned with research on bowhead whales, 

humpback whales, Dall's porpoise, and northern fur seals. 

The Southwest Region is concerned with managing and 

monitoring the general permit that allows an incidental take of 

porpoises in the purse seine fishery for yellowfin tuna. The 

Region manages the observer program aboard the purse seine 

vessels, inspects tuna seiners for pclrpoise safety gear, and 

conducts workshops for skippers of seiners. The Southwest 

Fisheries Center is responsible for research on marine mammals 

in two areas: tuna/porpoise and coastal marine mammals. 

Amendments to the Act in 1984 called for an expanded monitoring 

program of dolphin stocks involved ir, the tuna fishery. Also, 

they are collecting information to assess the population status 

of six coastal species that may be affected by human 

activities. Animals studied include sea lions, harbor and 

northern elephant seals, harbor porpc~ises, bottlenose dolphins 

and pilot whales. 

The Center's Honolulu Laboratoryf organized the 

entanglement workshop held in November 1984 in Honolulu. 

Workshop participants examined the pr,oblem of marine mammals, 

birds, turtles and fish becoming entangled in lost and 

discarded fishing gear and other debris. 

On the East and Gulf coasts, the Southeast Region and the 

Southeast Fisheries Center are concer-ned with the populations 

of bottlenose dolphins that are taken for public display. To 

assure that live-captures and removals do not have an adverse 

impact on local populations of these animals, NMFS limits the 

number that can be taken from any given area. Permit holders 

must coordinate all taking with the Southeast Region. The 

Center is monitoring and assessing the status of the local 

populations from which the removals are made. 

The Northeast Region is concerned about increased whale 

watching in New England waters and has issued guidelines for 

this popular activity. The Region and the Northeast Fisheries 

Center will distribute brochures that include the guidelines to 

private boaters, whale watchers, and members of the whale watch 

industry. Also, they are investigating research methods to 

determine the cumulative effect of these activities on 

whales. The Region, along with the Marine Mammal Commission, 

is sponsoring a workshop to determine what research and 
management efforts are necessary to protect right whales in the 

western North Atlantic Ocean. The Northeast and Southeast 

Regions and Northeast and Southeast Fisheries Centers are 

coordinating their research and management efforts for species 

along the Atlantic coast that are comrnon to both Regions. The 

Northeast Fisheries Center is funding a study to assess the 

incidental take of marine mammals in New England groundf ish 

gillnets, and both the Region and Center are investigating the 

taking of marine mammals in all fisheries. 

1984 AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT 

In 1984, the Congress amended and reauthorized the Act 

through 1988. Most of the amendments concern the incidental 

taking of marine mammals in commercial purse-seine fishing for 

yellowfin tuna. One amendment extends the general permit held 

by the American tunaboat industry indefinitely subject to the 

following conditions: 

o the permittee is required to use the best safety 

techniques and equipment a v a i l a b l e to provide for 

the safety of marine mammals; 

o all permit conditions in effect on 17 July 1984 

shall apply throughout the permit's term, except 

that ajustments may be made with reispect to 

fishing gear, fishing practiclz requirements, and 

permit administration, provided that such terms 

and conditions are based on the best scientific 

information available; and 

o annual quotas of 250 coastal spotted dolphins and 

2,750 spinner dolphins were established, subject 

to the requirement that there be no "accidental 

taking" of either species during the period that 

incidental taking is allowed. These quotas are to 

be included in the overall annual quota 

established by the Secretary of Commerce. 

Also, the Congress strengthened the requirement that the 

Secretary of the Treasury ban the importation of commercial 

fish or fish products if those fish have been caught with 

fishing technology that results in the incidental kill or 
incidental serious injury of ocean mammals in excess of U.S. 

standards. The new language requires foreign nations to take 

more vigorous steps towards implement ing a marine mammal 

protection program for their fishing fleets,. This action was 

taken because the Congress recognizes that the U.S. tuna fleet 

has made considerable progress in reducing the number of 

porpoise killed incidentally in the course of tuna purse 

seining, but high levels of mortality may be resulting from the 

fishing practices of foreign flag vessels. The Act requires 

each foreign exporting nation to prov ide documentary evidence 

that it has adopted a regulatory program for the incidental 

take of marine mammals that is "comparable" to that of the 

United States, and that the average rate of the incidental 

taking is "comparable" to that of don~estic vessels. 

In addition, the Secretary of Commerce was directed to 

start a scientific research program t.o monitor the "indices of 

abundance and trends of marine mammal. popul.at ion stocks which 

are taken incidentally in the course of commercial purse seine 

fishing for yellowfin tuna in the eastern t-ropical Pacific 

Ocean by 1 January 1985." If, after considering the best 

scientific information available, the Secretary determines that 

the taking allowed by the general permit is having a 

"significant adverse effect" on a marine mammal population 

stock, appropriate action must be taken to modify the permit. 
PART I 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS 

Permits for the Incidental Taking 

of Marine Mammals During Commercial Fishing Operations 

A general permit system established under the Act 

authorizes the incidental taking of marine mammals by domestic 

and foreign fishermen during commercial fishing operations. 

General permits are issued by NMFS to foreign fishing 

associations or embassies whose governments have a governing 

international fishery agreement (GIFA) with the United States 

allowing them to fish in the U.S. fishery conservation zone. 

For 1985, NMFS has issued or continued 12 foreign general 

permits that allow a total taking of 6,704 marine mammals. 

This includes the take of 5,500 Dall's porpoise during salmon 

gillnet operations under a general permit issued to the 

Federation of Japan Salmon Fisheries C:ooperettive Associations. 

If domestic fishermen incidentally take marine mammals, 

they may apply for a certificate of inclusion issued under a 

general permit. Excluding the general permit issued to the 

American Tunaboat Association and its annual. quota of 20,500 

porpoise, NMFS has issued nine domestic general permits which 

are valid until December 31, 1988. These permits allow a total 

taking of 6,425 animals each year. Table 1 in the Appendix 

includes a list of foreign and domestic fish~ing corporations 

with permits and the number of marine mammals they are allowed 

to take. 

Authorizations that Allow a 

'Small Take' of Marine ~amm~as 

Commercial fishinq. The Act, as amended in 1981, allows 

for the incidental but not intentional taking of small numbers 

of nondepleted species or stocks of marine mammals by U.S. 

citizens engaged in commercial fishing opera.tions. This 

exemption to the general permit requirements; of the Act can be 

granted only if the total taking will have a negligible impact 
on the species or stocks involved and if a reporting system has 

been established among the fishermen involved to monitor and 

report any taking. 

Final guidelines covering this small take have been 

published, and they include procedures for applying for a 

Letter of Exemption and the requirements for establishing a 

system for reporting takings. 

An exemption has been granted to the ;National Fish Meal 

and Oil Association which allows owners and operators of U.S. 

menhaden vessels an annual take of up to 33 marine mammals; 

this exemption is valid through 1988. 

In the purse-seine fishery for inenhadten, 81 vessels were 

active in the 1983 Gulf fishery and 41 werce active in the 1983 

Atlantic fishery. During the year, these vessels set their 

nets over 100,000 times. The only confirmled report of a marine 

mammal taken incidental to this f ishlary involved the accidental 

encirclement of an Atlantic bottlenose do1,phin in the Gulf of 

Mexico in 1981. However, since therle have been several 

unconfirmed reports of incidental takes of other marine 

mammals, the Association filed for a small take exemption. 

For reporting purposes, the Association will distribute 

copies of a reporting form and marine mammal identification 

guide to the captains of all menhaden fishing vessels owned or 

operated by the members of the association. Information 

collected will include the location, depth, time, and date of 

any takes, and the sex, species, and number of marine mammals 

encountered. The captains will be encouraged to describe the 

take in an effort to identify problem and steps that can be 

taken to reduce injury and prevent mortalities. 

A Letter of Exemption has also been issued to the New 

England groundf ish gillnetters to take up to 180 harbor 

porpoise, 50 harbor seals, and a total of 50 other species 

(grey seal, white-sided dolphin, common dolphin, white-beaked 

dolphin, and pilot whale) during groundfish gillnetting 

operations in the Gulf of Maine. The Division of Wildlife, 

University of Maine at Orono, will be the recipient of any 

reports of marine mammals taken under this exemption which is 

valid through 1988. 

'Small Take' of Marine Mammals (other than commercial 

fishing). NMFS received a request from the Department of the 

Air Force to allow a small take of marine mammals incidental to 

space shuttle launches from Vandenbery Air Force Base, 
California. The Air Force describes the taking as infrequent, 

incidental, and unintentional harassm'ent dule to focused sonic 

booms generated over the Northern Channel Islands when the 

space shuttle is launched from VAFB. Launc.hes are expected to 

begin in 1986 and continue through 1994. Out of 80 planned 

launches, a maximum of seven are predicted to occur in 

trajectories that will produce focuselcl soni'c booms over the 

Northern Channel Islands. Focused sonic booms occur when the 

space shuttle curves toward the horizontal, and its sonic boom 

is focused into a narrow zone of particularly high sound 

pres%ure. 

The Air Force requested an authorization to potentially 

harass six species of pinnipeds inclulcling tlhe harbor seal, 

California sea lion, northern sea lion, northern elephant seal, 

northern fur seal, and Guadalupe fur seal. Since NMFS has 

proposed to list the Guadalupe fur seal as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), we cannot autlhorize allowing a 

take under this section of the MMPA. 

The regulations issued in 1982 to govern a small take of 

ringed se.als incidental to on-ice seismic acetivities in the 

Beaufort Sea remain in effect. Five seismic companies 

requested and were authorized to take ringed seals for the 1985 

season. 

Permits for Scien,tif ic 

Research and Public Displi3y 

TheAct allows permits to be issued for taking or 

importing marine mammals for scientific research or public 

display. Three steps must be taken before is permit can be 

granted: 

1. Receipt and initial review o!F the ispplication by NMFS, 

publication of a notice of receipt in the Federal 

Register, and transmittal of the application to the 

Marine Mammal Commission for review; 

2. A 30-day review of the application by NMFS, the 

Commission, the public, and other Federal agencies; 

and 
3. Final processing by NMFS, including consideration of 

comments, and approval or denial of the application. 

During the past year, NMFS considered 42 applications for 

permits. Of these, 17 have been issued for scientific research 

and 14 for public display. Also, NME'S acted on 112 requests 

for modifications or authorizations. 

Killer Whale Permit. A permit issued to Sea World, Inc., 

in November 1983 to take killer whale's for public display and 

scientific research continues to receive national attention. 

The permit authorized the capture of up to 100 killer whales 

over a five year period. Of those, LIP to 10 were authorized to 

be taken and maintained in captivity for display and breeding. 

The remaining 90 animals were authorized to be held temporarily 

for research and released. In 1984, severall individuals and 

organizations filed a motion for summary judgement with the 

U.S. District Court of Alaska charging that the Federal 

Government had violated the National Environmental Protection 

Act in issuing the permit by failing to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). In January 1985, the court held that 

an EIS would have to be prepared and declared the permit 

invalid. 

Transfer of Marine --- Mamma,l 

Management to the States - 

In 1983, NMFS and the Fish and Wfildlife Service published 

final regulations implementing the 1981 amendments regarding 

return of management. These regulations establish new 

procedures for the transfer of management a.uthority, the form 

and minimum requirements of a state a.pplica.tion, and the 

continuing relationship of Federal and State wildlife agencies 

on marine mammal issues. 

Although NMFS has not received any applications for return 

of management, the following States have indicated interest and 

requested advice. 

Alaska. Recently, the State held about 50 meetings in 

cities and villages to explore whether Alaska should apply for 

return of management. No decision has been1 made by the State 

at this time. 
--- California. Since 1978, California has maintained a 

marine mammal program collecting information to be used if the 

State requests a transfer of management authority. However, in 

June 1984, the California Department of Fish and Game informed 

NMFS that it had decided not to seek transfer of management at 

this time. The Department expressed interest in continuing to 

study marine mammal/fishery interactions and to develop nonlethal means to mitigate these interactions. 

Washington and Oregon. The Washington Department of Game 

and the Oreqon Department of Fish and Wildlife have received 

funds from NMFS to assess regional pinniped populations, to 

study and assess marine mammal/fisheries interactions, and to 

evaluate measures to mitigate these interactions. Since both 

States have expressed an interest in return of management 

authority, they are using this information to develop 

management plans and population determinations as required for 

transfer of management. 

Regional Marine Mammal 

Strandina Networks 

All five NMFS Regions are operating marine mammal 

stranding networks that include individuals and organizations 

that volunteer to cooperate with NMFS. Authorized members 

collect scientific specimen materials, record the event with 

the Regional Coordinator, and assist local and Federal 

authorities in the disposal of the animals. 

Alaska. The Alaska Region has taken steps to establish a 

stranding network which will provide data on cetacean 

strandings to the Marine Mammal Events Program coordinated by 

the Smithsonian Institution. Stranding data are presently 

being compiled by the Juneau Off ice. Following the 

establishment of Regional Response Centers, all villages, 

flying services and public safety officials will be notified of 

the appropriate methods for report iny siyhtinys. 

Northwest Region. Participants in the Northwest Marine 

~ammaT stranding Network handled over 800 marine mammal 

strandings in Washington and Oregon in 1984. Scientific 

investigations were made of 400 of these strandings. Harbor 

seals and sea lions accounted for over 95 percent of the 

strandings. In the Northwest, the general public is advised to 
report strandlnss to the Washington State Patrol or the Oregon 

State Police who relay the informaticln to one of five Stranding 

Network Response Centers. The Resporlse Centers coordinate the 

appropriate response which varies frclm providing advice to 

dispatching a team of scientific invesstigat.ors. Since many of 

the reported strandings cannot be verified and others are 

healthy seals or sea lions that were though~t to be sick by the 

public, the Response Centers screen a,ll calls to determine 

which reports are verifiable sightings that. might warrant a 

prompt response or scientific investigation. 

Network participants were busy with an unusually high 

number of strandings of California se8a lions from late August 

through December in Oregon and the outer coast of Washington; 

these may have been caused by an outt~reak of a bacterial 

infection, leptospirosis. Gray whale strandings in Puget Sound 

drew considerable media attention due to speculation that the 

strandings may be related to polluticln. The number of gray 

whale strandings in the Northwest was', again, unusually high. 

In both 1983 and 1984, there were 27 gray whale strandings 

compared to an average of 2 to 4 stra.ndings; in past years. 

Southwest Region. The Southwest. Region' s Network 

coordinator uses computerized data tc:~ evaluate stranding 

trends, quality of data, and effectiveness of marine mammal 

rehabilitation programs. In 1984, 7917 pinn~iped, 101 cetacean, 

and three sea turtle strandings were reported for the 

California coast (see Table 1). An increase in the number of 

reported California sea lion strandings has been attributed 

primarily to the same bacterial infection noted in male sea 

lions in the Northwest Region. 

The Region made presentations on network operations to the 

Pacific States Outer Continental Shelf Regional Technical 

Working Group, several coastal managelment agencies, The 

Wildlife Society, and the First West Coast Marine Mammal 

Conference . 

Southeast Reg ion. The Southeast. Reg ion Stranding Network 

maintains a directory of all participants. During this year, 

25 Letters of Authorizations (LOA) si.gned by the Regional 

Director were issued to individuals who requested to 

participate in the network. 

--- Northeast Region. The Northeast. Regional Stranding 

Network (NRSN) reports stranding~, notifies enforcement 

agencies, recovers live and dead stranded marine mammals and 

coordinates and reports scientific research. The regional 

network includes representatives from the MMFS law enforcement 
division, State law enforcement agencies, State and local 

fisheries officers, and six major inst:itutions that hold 

Letters of Agreement from the Northeast Region. All non-law 

enforcement personnel working in the network come under the 

control of the Letter of Agreement holders. 

Letters of Agreement have been issued to organizations 

that have displayed expertise , professionalism, and cooperat ion 

when dealing with stranded marine animals. Holders of Letters 

are the only institutions that can legally take part in a 

marine- mammal stranding in the Northeast Region. 

The Region is divided into separate geographical areas of 

responsibility for each of the six institutions. The network 

has proven its ability to use data from strandings, provide an 

efficient format for its dissemination, ease enforcement 

efforts, encourage cooperation between agencies, investigators, 

institutions and the public, and reduce dupl-ication of 

effort. The network is responsible for identifying individuals 

and/or institutions in the areas that are carrying out programs 

beyond basic data collection and assisting their needs. Marine 

mammal parts are made available to qualified universities, 

museums and individual researchers for public display or 

educational purposes. 
Cetaceans reported to the California Marine Mammal Stranding 

Network in 1984. Table 1. 

Number Percent 

Common Name - Species Reported Of Total 

Harbor porpoise - 

Phocoena phocoena 

Common dolphin - 

Delphinus delphis 

Gray whale - 

Eschrichtius robustus 

Pacific white-sided dolphin - 

Lagenorhynchus obliquidens 

Bottlenose dolphin - 

Turs iops trunca tus 

Dall's porpoise - 

Phocoenoides dalli i 

Cuvier's beaked whale - 

Ziphius cavirostris 

Unidentified beaked whale - 

Mesoplodon spp. 

Pygmy sperm whale - 

Kogia breviceps 

Sperm whale - 

physter macrocephalus 

Blue whale - 

Balaenoptera musculus 

Minke whale - 

Balaenoptera acutorostrata 

Unidentified cetacean 

Total 10 5 99.9 
Marine Mammal and 

Fisheries Interactions 

Interactions between marine mammals and fishermen 

sometimes present difficult problems, both for the animals and 

the humans who depend on the available fish resources. 

During some commercial fishing operations, marine mammals 

may be killed, injured, or harassed. On the other hand, marine 

mammals take or damage fish caught on lines or in traps and 

nets; they damage fishing gear during these encounters or when 

they accidentally become entangled; and, sometimes, they 

compete with fishermen for the same fish and shellfish 

resources. 

Before the Act, various forms of harassment were used to 

control the distribution, abundance, and behavior of marine 

mammals. However, since the Act imposed a moratorium on these 

activities, animals in certain areas apparently have become 

more numerous and bolder in their interactions with fishermen 

and fishing gear. 

Alaska Region and Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center. 

The incidental catch of northern sea lions in the Shelikof 

Strait, Alaska, walleye pollock joint-venture fishery was 

studied by Center scientists to assess the nature and magnitude 

of the catch. Data were obtained by placing United States 

observers on foreign processing vessels. Dead sea lions from 

trawl nets were counted, sexed and measured, teeth were removed 

to determine age, and stomach contents were analyzed. Although 

the fishery has continued to expand in number of boats and 

estimated total catch (74,136 tons in 1982 to 171,539 tons in 

1984), the estimated incidental catch of northern sea lions has 

declined (988-1,436 in 1982; 216-324 in 1983; and 237-355 in 

1984). Of the sea lions processed, 73 percent were caught 

between 8 p.m. and 5 a.m., probably during net retrieval. Most 

of the sea lions caught were females ranging in age from 1 to 

25 years old; 79 percent of the females were sexually mature 

and probably part of the reproducing population. Males were an 

average of 4.8 years old, and only 12 percent were old enough 

to obtain and defend territories. Analysis of stomach contents 

showed that the sea lions consumed pollock of the same size as 

that caught in the commercial fishery. 

An explanation for the reduction in incidental catch of 

sea lions but an increase in catch and effort includes 

differences in the dates and location of the fishery and 
modification of fishing techniques. The impact of this loss of 

sea lions on the Gulf of Alaska population is unknown, but the 

removal of sexually mature females from local populations could 

contribute to the declines that have been (observed. 

Northwest Region and Northwest and Alaska Fisheries 

Center. Since 1980, NMFS has contri:buted funds to the 

Washington Department of Game to studv marine mammal-f isheries 

interactions in the Columbia River a:ni adj(acent waters. 

Partial support was provided by the Columbia River Estuary Data 

Development Program and the Marine Mammal Commission. 

After three years of study, researchers found that marine 

mammal/£ isheries interactions occurred in 162 percent of the 

salmon gillnet fishing trips in the study area (lower Columbia 

River, Grays Harbor, and Willipa Bay), and these interactions 

resulted in damage to fish catches, fishing gear, and/or marine 

mammals in 36 percent of all the fishing trips sampled. Harbor 

seals were the primary cause of fish damage in all estuaries 

and seasons. Since 1976, the harbor seal population in the 

study area has increased at an annual rate of about 22 

percent. This increasing number of harbor seals and California 

sea lions may account for the increasing incidence of fisheries 

interactions problems being reported by Noirthwest fishermen. 

Potentially significant marine n~ammal/f isheries interactions have been reported in other Northwest fisheries such as 

the salmon gillnet fisheries in Puget; Sound. Commercial 

fisheries in the Northwest reporting interactions with marine 

mammals include salmon and herring gillnets, salmon and 

bottomfish troll, salmon and herring purse seine, bottomfish 

and shrimp trawl, bottomfish longline, crab pots, and salmon 

aquaculture facilities. Recreational. fishermen also have 

reported fish and gear loss when fishing for salmon and 

s teelhead. 

The Northwest Region encourages fishermen to obtain 

Certificates of Inclusion to enhance their cooperation in 

submitting information on marine mamn~al/f isheries 

interactions. This effort has resulted in an annual roll of 

over 4,000 Certificate holders and has greatly increased the 

number of reports of interactions received from fishermen over 

past years. 

There is an increasing concern, especially by private and 

public hatcheries, over the potential impact of pinnipeds on 

free swimming salmonids in rivers and estua,ries. The sealinflicted marks have been observed in coho and chinook salmon, 
but no effort has been made to documerit the rate of 

incidence. Recent studies at a steelhead ha~tchery indicate 

that more than 30 percent of the returning steelhead had scars 

or scratches caused by pinnipeds. Since these represent only 

the fish that survived a seal predation attempt, there is 

concern over how many hatchery raised fish fail to return due 

to pinniped inf licted injuries or preclat ion. Also, since these 

scarred salmonids are direct evidence of pinniped predation on 

free swimming salmonids, there is also concern over the 

potential impact of pinniped predation on wild stocks of 

salmonbds, especially the depressed ones. 

Southwest Region and Southwest Fisheries Center. The -- California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) investigated 

marine mammal-fishery interactions under a joint contract from 

the Region and Southwest Fisheries Center. Reports from the 

Department described levels of incider~tal teike of marine 

mammals in all State managed fisheries, speczific observations 

on interactions in the shark drift gillnet fishery, and the 

results of acoustic harassment tests in the San Francisco Bay 

herring fishery, ocean salmon fishery, and southern California 

sport fisheries. 

Researchers observed the incident.al take of marine mammals 

by commercial fisheries (primarily the drift. gillnet fishery 

for sharks and swordfish) and attempts to define fishing areas 

and level of fishing effort by each fishery, The State is 

developing and testing an acoustic hax-assment device and a 

taste-aversion procedure that uses chemical emetics to keep 

pinnipeds away from the catch of fishermen. 

Although marine mammals, especial.1~ Callifornia sea lions, 

interact frequently with recreational fisheries, current 

regulations do not allow commercial passenger fishing vessels 

to harass marine mammals interacting with their passengers' 

catch. In response to a petition from the Sportfishing 

Association of California, NMFS has proposed to modify the 

definition of "commercial fishing operation" to include these 

vessels, issue new regulatory restrict:ions, and define new 

certification requirements. These proposed changes would 

establcsh the procedure necessary to permit operators of these 

vessels to legally take marine mammals in a non-lethal manner 

that would not injure them. 

Northeast Region and Northeast Fisheries Center. 

Occasionallv. marine mammals are taken incidentallv to 

commercial fishery operations in the Gulf of ~aine- and in 

foreign fishing and joint fishery ventures in the Mid- 
Atlantic. Marine mammal interactioris with bottom gillnet 

operations for groundfish (cod, haddock, h~ake, cusk, pollock 

and spiny dogfish) in the Gulf of Maine usually result in 

little damage to gear or catch. However, entanglement of 

harbor seals, harbor porpoise, and clther small dolphins has 

been reported. NMFS is funding studies to determine the extent 

and impact of marine mammals/£ isheries interactions on both the 

marine mammal and fisheries populations in the Gulf of Maine. 

The University of Maine is studying the distribution and 

abundance, habitat use patterns, and population characteristics 

of harbor seals and harbor porpoise, and it is investigating 

the fisheries interaction problem for all marine mammal species 

in the Gulf of Maine. 

Marine mammals are taken incidentally in foreign fishing 

and joint venture fisheries that use trawling gear for squid, 

mackerel, and butterfish in the Mid-Atlantic offshore waters. 

Pilot whales, common dolphins, and false killer whales are the 

most likely marine mammals involved. Observers from the 

Northeast Region are collecting data on the incidental take of 

marine mammals in foreign fishing ventures. The Region and 

Center are developing a data base program to monitor the 

incidental take and its effects, if any, on marine mammal 

populations. 

Preliminary analyses of data suggest that the total take 

of marine mammals in fishery operati~ns in the Northeast Region 

is not significant and does not seril~usly threaten the marine 

mammal populations. However, potentially significant 

interactions have been reported to the Region involving the 

entanglement of whales in fishing gear. So far, these 

interactions have involved fixed gear such as gillnets and 

lobster gear. 

Law Enf orcement 

Law enforcement is necessary to the sluccess of the marine 

mammal management program. The moratorium on taking marine 

mammals is enforced by special agents from NMFS and State agents 

under contract. NMFS has about 90 agents that participate in 

enforcement of the Act. During this reporting period, NMFS 

special agents spent 5,778 hours investigating illegal 

activities and responding to other requirements of the Act. 
These agents initiated 193 investigations of alleged 

violations. Of these, 142 resulted in documented violations. 

These violations involved 28 unlawful takings or harassment of 

marine mammals. In addition, 105 seizures were made that 

involved 566 items. 

NMFS special agents also investigate reports of stranded 

and beached marine mammals. Strandings occurred over the 

reporting period in record numbers, totalling 1,664 animals. 

In the Cape Cod Bay area, 127 pilot whales were stranded making 

1984 the fourth consecutive year that mass strandings have 

occurred in this area. 

d~~~ special agents and State conservation officers 

cooperate to enforce the Act in most coastal states. NMFS 

currently has cooperative en£ orcement agreements or memoranda 

of understanding with Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, 

Alabama, Louisiana, California, Oregon and Washington. 

Legal Actions .- 

Balelo v. Baldrige, (9th Cir.) Civ. No. 81-5807, 81-5806; 

United States v. $501178.80,9th ~ir..)C"lv, No. 82-5433. In 

this class action, commercial tuna fishermen challenged the 

Agency's statutory and constitutional authority to promulgate a 

regulation during the 1980 tuna/porpoise rulemaking allowing 

the Agency to require NMFS observers cln board a tuna boat as a 

condition to obtaining a certificate c~f inc1,usion. In July 

1981, the U.S. District Court for the Southe!rn District of 

California held the regulation invalid because it sanctioned 

the use of observer gathered informati.on for enforcement 

purposes. The Court found the regulat.ion was beyond the 

Agency's statutory authority for these' purposes, and, without 

statutory authorization, the pervasively regulated industry 

exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement does not 

apply 

A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

went beyond the decision of the district court by finding the 

regulation invalid for all purposes including the collection of 

scientific data (which the district court had found 

allowable). However, the Government was granted a rehearing 

before a full panel of the Ninth Circuit which set aside the 
decision made by a panel of three judges. This decision, 

issued by the Ninth Circuit on January 24,, 1984, reversed the 

decision of the district court and held that the regulation was 

authorized under the broad rulemaking authority of the MMPA, 

and it fell within the prevasively regulated industry exception 

to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment. The court 

affirmed the judgment in the companion case U.S. v. $50,178.80, 

a civil forfeiture action in which clefendants' motion to 

supress observer collected evidence was denied by the District 

Court of the Central District of Ca1.iforni.a. 

Representatives of the tuna fishing fleet filed a petition 

for a -- writ of certiorari on the decision in Balelo on April 23, 

1984. Opposition briefs were filed by the United States 

Government and intervenor-defendents Environmental Defense 

Fund, Inc. and the Defenders of Wilc~life. The Supreme Court 

denied the petition on June 18, 1984, bringing the litigation 

to a close. NMFS has been able to resume its observer program 

because of this decision. 

American Tunaboat Association v. Baldrige, ( 9 t h C i r c u i t ) 

Civ. No. 82-5588. In this action, the American Tunaboat 

Association (ATA) challenged the Administrator's refusal to 

follow the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) recommendations on 

three specific scientific findings in the Agency's final 

decision in the 1980 tuna/porpoise rulemaking held in 

conjunction with the ATA's application for a general permit. 

The case was brought even though the Agency authorized a quota 

of 20,500 porpoise for each of the years 1981-1985 and issued a 

general permit covering these years. The portions of the 

Agency's final decision challenged by the ATA were (1) whether 

the calculation of mean school size by the Agency should have 

used data obtained by agency observers aboard tuna boats, (2) 

whether an incorrect premise, that observers on aerial surveys 

could be expected to see all large porpoise schools on the 

trackline, was used in the agency's calculation of the density 

of porpoise schools, and (3) whether the area inhabited by 

porpoise was larger than the value used in the agency's 

analysis. 

On March 10, 1982, the U.S. District Court for the 

Southern District of California entered an order declaring that 

the determination of the ALJ on the three {disputed matters were 

the best available scientific evidenlze wit:hin the meaning of 

the Act and that the Administrator s'hould :have accepted them. 

The Agency appealed the decision of .the district court to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the 

district court opinion on July 14, 1984, holding that NOAA's 
1980 regulations which set the porpoise quotas were unsupported 

by substantial evidence. 

While both the trial and appellate courts found fault with 

the data utilized in the rulemaking, neither court expressly 

invalidated the regulations. The portion of the 1980 

rulemaking which set quotas based upon the economic and 

technological feasibility of the tuna fishery was not 

challenged. Since it was the feasibility test which was used 

to establish the overall porpoise mortality quota of 20,500, 

the total allowable mortality remains unchanged even though 

quotas for some species are increased when the ALJ's 

determinations are used. 

On July 17, 1984, amendments to the MMPA extended the ATA 

general permit and its terms and conditions, including the 

existing quotas. Additionally, quotas were provided for two 

previously prohibited species, the coastal spotted and eastern 

spinner dolphins. It is not expected that the decision in ATA 

v. Baldrige will affect the ongoing implementation of the tuna 

porpoise program. The decision, however, will have a bearing 

on the methodologies used in arriving at future estimates of 

population size. 

International Fund for Animal Welfare v. Baldrige (D.D.C.) 

Civ. No. 84-1838. On May 30, 1984, the Department of Commerce 

contracted with the St. Paul Island native corporation, 

Tanadgusix Corporation, to conduct the 1984 harvest of North 

Pacific fur seals. The International Fund for Animal Welfare 

and other organizations sought to enjoin the harvest, alleging, 

among other things, a violation of the MMPA,. The plaintiffs 

argued that the North Pacific fur seal is blelow its optimum 

sustainable population and, therefore, the MMPA prohibits a 

commercial harvest. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 

rendered its decision on June 28, 1984, consolidating the 

motion for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the 

merits. The court found that the commercial harvest, conducted 

under the authority of the Fur Seal Act (FSA), did not violate 

the MMPA. 

Section 113 of the MMPA states that its provisions "shall 

be deemed to be in addition to and not in contravention of the 

provisions of any existing treaty, ccnvention, or agreement, or 

any statute implementing the same, which may otherwise apply to 

the taking of marine mammals." The court found that under 

present conditions the MMPA contravenes both the Interim 
Convention on Conservation of North Pacifi.c Fur Seals and the 

FSA. If the MMPA were applicable, a harvest would be precluded 

since the fur seals are below their optimu~m sustainable 

population. However, the Convention and the FSA clearly grant 

the United States the right to conduct the harvest. Therefore, 

under Section 113 of the MMPA, the Convention and the FSA take 

precedence. 

Jones v. Gordon (D. Alaska) Civ. 584-011. - Plaintiffs, who 

included several whale watchina tour o~erators, the Sierra Club 

and other environmental oryaniiat ions ,- and the. State of Alaska, 

challenged the issuance of a permit by NMFS to Sea World, Inc. 

for scientific research on up to 100 killer whales and 

permanent retention of up to 10 whales for purposes of public 

display and captive breeding. NMFS issued the permit under the 

MMPA after holding public hearings in Seattle and reviewing 

extensive public comments. In response to public concern and 

comments submitted by the Marine Mammal Commission, the capture 

of any killer whale was conditioned upon the results of 

preliminary research to be conducted by Sea World. Relying 

upon NOAA's National Environmental Pl3licy Act ( NEPA) Directive, 

which generally excludes scientific research and public display 

permits from environmental documentation requirements, NMFS 

determined that the preparation of an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was unnecessary. 

Plaintiffs alleged that the issuance of the permit violated 

NEPA since no EA or EIS was prepared. 

On January 16, 1985, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Alaska determined that NlvlFS violated NEPA and 

declared the permit invalid and void, The court found that the 

venue and statute of limitation prov:isions which restrict 

judicial reivew of MMPA permits to a period of 60 days 

following issuance are inapplicable to a lawsuit brought under 

NEPA. In so ruling, the court determined that NEPA provided a 

basis of jurisdiction independent of the MMPA. 

Sea World, which intervened as a defendant, unsuccessfully 

argued that there is a statutory conflict between the time 

constraints of the MMPA and NEPA. Although the MMPA mandates 

that action be taken on a permit app:.ication within 90 days of 

initial publication, the court ruled that this requirement 

presents no fundamental irreconcilabl-e conflict with NEPA; NEPA 

can be satisfied by delaying initial notice of the application, 

by extending the comment period, or by modifying the timing of 

EIS preparation. 
The court stated that most MMPA p'ermits will qualify for 

the exclusion from NEPA in section 6(c)(5) of NOAA Directive 

02-10, but the Sea World permit fell within the stated 

exceptions to the exclusion--i.e. that the permit was the 

"subject of public controversy based on potential environmental 

consequences" and would have "uncertain environmental impacts." 

The court also rejected the Government's argument that the 

MMPAts permit procedures are the "functional equivalent" of 

NEPA review. The court narrowly construed the "functional 

equivalent" rule articulated in other cases, stating that it is 

inapplicable to NMFS which has a "far different mandate [to 

protect the environment] than the NEPA." 

Defendants filed a notice of appeal on ,March 27, 1985. 

American Cetacean Society v. Baldrige (D. D.C. ) Civ. No. 

84-3414. The United States and- the Government of Ja~an 

exchanged letters on November 13, 1984, setting forth an 

agreement to phase out Japanese commercial whaling. Under that 

agreement, the United States would not certify Japan under the 

Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act or the 

Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to the Fishery Clonservation and 

Management Act if, by December 13, 1984, Japan withdrew its 

objection to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) zero 

quota for sperm whales effective on or before April 1, 1988 and 

if, by April 1, 1985, Japan withdrew its objection to the IWC 

commercial whaling moratorium effectiv~e following the 1987 

whaling season. On December 11, 1984, Japan withdrew its 

objection to the sperm whale quota in accordance with the 

agreement. 

On November 8, 1984, the American Cetacean Society (ACS) 

and other organizations filed suit to enjoin Secretary Baldrige 

and Secretary of State Shultz from agreeing not to certify 

Japan for whaling activities which exceed IWC quotas. The U.S. 

District Court for the District of Columbia, on March 5, 1985, 

ruled in favor of the ACS and ordered the defendants 

immediately to certify Japan under the Pelly and Packwood 

Amendments. In so ruling, the court determined that the 

Secretary of Commerce has "a clear and nondiscretionary duty to 

certify the Japanese whaling in excess of the established IWC 

quotas" holding that such whaling necessarily diminishes the 

effectiveness of the IWC conservation program. 

A stay pending appeal was issued by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 18, 1985, 

and oral argument on the appeal was held in mid-May. In light 
of the District Court order, Japan did not withdraw its 

objection to the IWC moratorium before April 1, 1985. Rather, 

under the terms of a modification to the ]November agreement, 

Japan is obligated to withdraw its objection within five days 

of a decision by the Court of Appea.1~ in favor of the U.S. 

Government. 
PART I1 

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES 

The Department of Commerce furthers the protection and 

conservation of marine mammals under existing international 

agreements and takes the initiative necessary to negotiate 

additional agreements required to achieve the purposes of the 

Act. NMFS participates in many international programs and 

activities to carry out this intent. 

International Whaling Commision ( IWC) 

1984 IWC Meeting. The United States substantially 

achieved its primary objectives for the 36th Annual Meeting to 

continue efforts in the IWC to implement the moratorium 

decision on schedule and to work with other IWC members to 

provide for the continued functioning and adaptation of the 

organization in addressing its fundamental purpose of whale 

conservation. 

IWC Moratorium Decision. The 36th Annual Meeting did not 

result in any changes in the moratorium decision made in 

1982. A working group met to dicuss the comprehensive review 

called for by the moratorium decision. Also, the U.S. made a 

proposal regarding the need to consider possible adjustments in 

the manner in which the IWC conducts its business that will 

reflect the organization's continuing responsibilities after 

the moratorium is implemented. 

The U.S.S.R., Japan, and Norway had exercised their rights 

under the Convention and filed an objection to the moratorium 

which removed any technical obligation under international law 

for these countries to comply. Lengthy discussions between the 

United States and Japan followed Japan's filing of objections 

to both the commercial whaling moratorium and the 1984-85 sperm 

whale ban. On November 13, 1984, the United States entered 

into an agreement with Japan designed to end all Japanese 

whaling no later than 1988. The Secretary of Commerce used his 

statutory authority under the Pelly and Packwood-Magnuson 
Amendments to eliminate uncertainties and pirovide for an 

effective cessation of Japanese commercial whaling triggered by 

Japanese withdrawal of their object ions. 

On December 11, 1984, the Government of Japan withdrew its 

objection to the IWC sperm whaling prohibition, effective 

April 1, 1988. The Secretary then confirmetl his commitment 

that given the withdrawal of the objection he would not certify 

Japan under the Pelly or Packwood-Magnuson Amendments for 

harvesting 400 sperm whales during each of the 1984 and 1985 

seasons. The second provision outlined in the agreement was 

Japan's withdrawal of its objection to the moratorium by 

April 1, 1985, effective April 1, 1988. On April 5, 1985, in a 

letter to the Secretary of Commerce, Japan said it would 

withdraw its objection to the moratorium within 5 days if a 

decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals upholds the agreement. 

The legality of this agreement between the United States 

and Japan has been challenged by several environmental groups 

(see Legal Actions). 

Aboriginal Whaling. In 1982, a£ ter years of intensive 

work, the IWC adopted management principles and procedures to 

govern aboriginal subsistence whaling, The!{ formally 

recognized in a separate management scheme the distinction 

between commercial and aboriginal subsistence whaling. The 

scheme codified the IWC's attempt to strike a proper balance 

between the needs of aboriginal people who depend on limited 

whaling to meet subsistence, cultural, and nutritional needs 

and the conservation needs of the affected whales. It requires 

that hunting be managed to provide for the recovery of depleted 

whale populations. 

The Commission took no action to change the 1984-85 block 

quota of 43 strikes for the Bering Sen stock of bowhead whales, 

22 of which were used in the spring 11384 hairvest by Alaskan 

Eskimos. It recommended that catchinq effort be directed 

toward smaller immature animals (less than 13 meters in length) 

and that steps be taken to decrease the rate of animals that 

were struck but not landed. Only 11 whales were landed in the 

spring 1984 harvest. 

The Commission agreed to request photographs of the dorsal 

area of gray whales landed in the Soviet Union for subsistence 

uses to compare with those obtained ii? the lbreeding areas of 

Baja California where there is no sub:;istence take. It also 

requested that Mexico and the United States provide estimates 

of current population size. Finally, it agreed to continue the 
present catch limit of 179 gray whales for aboriginal/subsistence 

use. 

With regard to western North Atlantic humpback and fin 

whales, the Commission adopted the Danish proposal to reduce 

the humpback catch limit from nine to eight, providing that if 

more than eight are killed in either 1985 or 1986, the catch in 

the succeeding year shall not exceed eight minus that excess, 

and to increase the fin catch limit from six to eight, 

provided, that the total catch in 1985 and 1986 does not exceed 

16. An annual catch limit of 300 West Greenland minke whales 

was established again for 1985. 

Commercial Catch Limits. The adoption of commercial 

whaling catch limits at the 36th Annual Meeting reflected the 

continued application of existing management procedures and a 

desire to allow interim catches by members who have accepted 

the moratorium but need time to identify and implement 

transition measures. The catch limits established (see Table 

11 in Appendix) represent a 30 percent reduction from those 

agreed to the year before (from 9,390 to 6,623) and an 85 

percent reduction from those in force in 11973. 

Inter-American 1:ropical 

Tuna omm mission -( IATTC~ -- 

The Commission's efforts to col.lect data on the tunaporpoise interaction by sampling purse seine trips have been 

hampered in recent years by the changes in fishing patterns and 

the temporary exodus from the area of a large number of 

vessels. In 1984, the Commission st.aff designed a new scheme 

that should increase the number of purse seine trips sampled. 

Of the 29 trips scheduled for 1984, 11 were non-U.S. 

Arrangements have not been concludecl with Mexico to deploy 

Commission observers on its flag vessels. However, during the 

Commission meeting, the Mexican delegation indicated that 

efforts were continuing to remove the internal obstacles to 

Mexican participation in the program. 

The estimates of mortality in 1984 are only available for 

the U.S. fleet. While the amount of tuna caught on porpoise 

through August is somewhat lower than for about the same period 

in 1983 (19,150 tons as compared to 28,433 tons), the kill rates 

estimated from IATTC data are greater than those for 1983. 
The Commission is investigating the factors that affect 

kill rates, in part because of differences between IATTC data 

and data collected by NMFS observers. These factors include 

latitude, season, wind speed, and vessel caplacity. A proper 

stratification scheme based on time and area would improve the 

mortality estimates, and the data from both NMFS and IATTC 

could then be safely combined. It apFlears that the mortality 

for all species can be quite localized and that areas of 

vulnerability can be defined. Also, the intensity of the 

fishery is a factor to be taken into account. Exploitation by 

encircling the animals disperses them into amaller groups and 

mortality tends to decline as a result. Animals subjected to 

fewer sets may have higher mortality rates suggesting that the 

adaptation of the animals helps to reduce mortality rates. 

To improve vessel procedures and thus reduce porpoise 

mortality, the IATTC staff has been studying the use of 

lighting systems by vessels to illuminate the backdown channel 

at night. The Commission has continued to loan high-intensity 

floodlights to vessels for use during dark backdown sets which 

have a much higher porpoise mortality rate than daylight 

backdown sets. In sets where floodlights were used, kill-perset rates appear to have been signif iclantly reduced. 

International North Pacif i.c 

Fisheries Commission ( INPFI~~ 

The United States and Japan signed a new Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) on marine mammals in 1984 which will remain 

in effect until June 1987. As with the two previous MOUs 

signed between the two countries, the agreement provides for 

cooperative research on Dall's porpoi~~e and other marine 

mammals incidentally caught in the Japanese high-seas salmon 

fishery. The MOUs were developed in c!onnect.ion with the 

International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the 

North Pacific Ocean. 

At the ~ovember 1984 annual meeting of the INPFC, the 

scientific subcommittee on marine mammals and U.S. and Japanese 

scientists presented 23 documents which included studies on 

marine mammals incidentally caught in the hi-gh-seas salmon 

fishery, gear modification experiments, acoustic studies, 

estimation of abundance of Dall 's porpoise, and the biology and 

behavior of Dall's porpoise. Based on observations in the 
Japanese mothership salmon fishery, U.S. scientists estimated 

that in 1984 this fishery incidentally caught 2,443 Dall's 

porpoise in the U.S. fisheries conservation zone and 3,355 

porpoise in all other areas of its operations. 

North Pacific - 

Fur Seal Commission (NPFSC) 

The NPFSC held its 27th Annual. Meeting in Moscow, U.S.S.R. 

in April 1984. The Commission focused its attention on the 

declining population of fur seals cbn the Pribilof Islands. The 

seals are currently declining at a rate of 4 to 8 percent 

annually. The scientists of the St.anding Scientific Committee 

provided all available information to the Commission on 

possible causes of the fur seal decline. The decline is not 

thought to be caused by the harvest. of sub-adult males. 

Rather, the female harvests during the 1960s and increased 

mortality of seals at sea appear to be the significant factors 

in the recent population decline. The causes of seal mortality 

at sea remain uncertain, but include deat.hs from entanglement 

in floating debris, primarily net fragments and plastic packing 

bands. The NPFSC agreed to continue its efforts among 

countries fishing in the North Pacific to reduce the discarding. 

of debris at sea. 

In an effort to combat the prclblem of entanglement as one 

way of addressing the larger issue of population decline, the 

United States is taking steps to prevent the discard of debris 

and gear. The International North Pacific Fisheries Commission 

and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council are considering 

revisions of both domestic and foreign regulations. 

On October 12, 1984, the four Party Governments, Canada, 

Japan, the Soviet Union, and the United States, signed the 1984 

Protocol Amending the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention and a 

Statement of Concerns which is attached to the Protocol. The 

Protocol extends the Convention for 4 years until 1988. The 

Statement notes the concerns of the Party Governments over 

several issues, especially the recent decline of the fur 

seals. The Protocol is currently undergoing ratification 

procedures within the United States and each of the other party 

Governments. 
US-USSR Marine Mammal. Project, 

Environmental Protect ion Aareement 

This project promotes joint research and exchange of 

information by U.S. and Soviet scientists on the biology, 

ecology and population dynamics of marine mammals of concern to 

both countries. In 1984, joint research anld exchange visits 

involved 12 scientists for laboratory and museum studies, a 

workshop on sea otter biology, and a walrus-ice seal cruise to 

the northern Bering Sea. 

In March, two Soviet scientists studield osteoloyical 

specimens of seals and walrus at the Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C. , Museum of Comparati,ve Zoology at Harvard, 

American Museum of Natural History in New York City, and 

Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh. 

In March and April, two other Soviet scientists worked 

with American colleagues at Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute 

and the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Centler. T'hese studies were 

continuations of ongoing morphological studies including small 

cetacean and pinniped color pattern variation and analyses of 

metrical and non-metrical characters in species of dolphins. 

The first part of a joint walrus-ice seal cruise took 

place on board a Soviet sealer/trawler in tlhe northern Bering 

Sea during November-December. Research included obtaining 

blood samples, specimens for virology and other disease 

studies, reproductive tracts for pregnancy rates and teeth for 

ageing studies. A total of 137 walrus and 2 bearded seals were 

taken during this part of the cruise. The second half of the 

cruise is scheduled for February to mid-April 1985. 

In April and May, a NMFS scienti,st wor:ked with Soviet 

colleagues studying ageing techniques for cetaceans at the 

N.K. Kolpzof f Institute for Developmental Biology, U.S.S.R. 

Academy of Sciences, Moscow. 
California sea lion pups are weighed and tagged on San Cleme

California. Photo by Dana Seagars, NMFS. 
PART I11 

MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS 

Alaska Reqion and 

Northwest Region (Management) 

National Marine Mammal Label-ator 

Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center -TY Research) 

Bowhead Whales. Although bowhead whaltes are listed as an 

endangered species, Alaska natives are allowed to hunt them for 

subsistence purposes. Catch limits for the hunt are set by the 

International Whaling Commission and regulations for management 

of the harvest are implemented under the Whaling Convention Act 

of 1949. The strike quota for 1984 and 1985 was set at 43 with 

no more than 27 strikes allowed in either year. Of these, 22 

were used during the spring hunt and 3 were used during the 

fall hunt. The remaining 18 strikes are available to be used 

during the 1985 season. During the spring hunt, 11 whales were 

landed; one was landed during the fal.1 hunt. NMFS-based 

enforcement agents were in Gambell/Savoonga, Point Hope and 

Barrow during the spring hunt and in Kaktowik during the fall 

hunt. 

Although NMFS is the Federal agency with primary 

responsibility for bowhead whales, several other agencies 

including the State of Alaska, the Alaska E;skimo Whaling 

Commission, the North Slope Borough, and the Department of the 

Interior, are concerned with their pr'otecti.on. Research into 

the status of the bowhead whale popu1,ation including studies of 

population size and recruitment , seas,onal clistribut ion and 

migration, and behavior relative to the avalilability of food or 

human disturbance, are carried out by NMFS, its National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory, the Minerals Manacjement Service and the 

North Slope Borough (Alaska). 
Annual Quotas and Catch of Bowhead Whales 1978-1984 

~uotal Actual Take - Landed Strikes Landed Lost Strikes 

l~uotas were first set for this popul-ation in 1978. Since 1982 

a landed whale counts against the strike quota. Hunting is to 

cease when the quota of total strikes including landed whales 

is reached. 

2~ased on IWC quotas, totals for 1981, 1982, 1983 combined 

could not exceed 45 landed or 65 struck. 

3~ two-year quota not to exceed 43 strikes was put into effect 

at the July 1983 IWC meeting. A domestic limit of 27 strikes 

was set for 1984 consistent with the IWC decision. 

Humpback Whales. A portion of the Northern Pacific 

opulation of humpback whales (about 1,200 animals) spend the 

ummer in Glacier Bay National Park and Prieserve and other 

areas in southeast Alaska. Most of the North Pacific 

population winters in the waters aro'~nd the main islands of 

Hawaii. Activities in both areas including commercial and 

recreational vessel traffic, offshore oil and gas development, 

sport and commercial fisheries, and coastal development may 

threaten this species. 
In Alaska from 1967 to 1977, an average of 20 to 25 

humpback whales were observed each year in Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve. In 1978 and 1979, the number appeared to 

decrease, and it was thought that increasing vessel traffic 

might be partially responsible. In 1980, in consultation with 

NMFS, the National Park Service established regulations to 

restrict vessel traffic to 1976 levels. In 1981, Congress 

appropriated special funds to the National Park Service to 

address the problem, and the Service gave a portion of the 

funds to NMFS to carry out the studies. However, since 

humpback whales are using the Bay in increasing numbers and 

since research studies have not found any evidence linking 

vessel traffic with the decrease in use in 1978 and 1979, the 

National Park Service is proposing a 12 to 14 percent increase 

above the 1976 level for vessel traffic into the Park. Studies 

made by NMFS indicated that the decrease in use of the Bay by 

humpback whales was probably related to the amount of food 

available in the Bay. 

During 1984, the Alaska State legislature voted to study 

the feasibility of using jetfoils to supplement the Alaska 

State Ferry System. Because of the potential for collisions 

with humpback whales, the Alaska Department of Transportation 

placed observers aboard the jetfoil to monitor the presence of 

whales. No collisions were reported during the 90-day trial 

period. Most whales were spotted near the coastline out of the 

path of the jetfoil. 

Dall's Porpoise. Marine mammals, primarily the Dall's 

porpoise, are taken during commercial gillnet operations by 

Japanese fishing vessels both in and out of the U.S. fishery 

conservation zone (FCZ) in the North Pacific Ocean and Bering 

Sea. Under a permit issued by NMFS, the Japanese salmon 

mothership fishery may take up to 5,500 Dall's porpoises 

annually inside the FCZ. Based on our observer records, we 

estimate that the total take in 1984 was 2,443 animals inside 

the FCZ. 

In 1984, NMFS monitored the incidental take by the 

Japanese with U.S. observers aboard catcherboats while the 

mothership fleets operated inside the FCZ and observers from 

Japan Fisheries Agency aboard catcherboats both inside and 

outside the FCZ. Observers also collected data on the 

incidental take of chinook salmon and steelhead trout during 

gillnet operations and on seabird entanglements. A cooperative 

research program that began in 1982 with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on the incidental take of seabirds during this 

fishery continued in 1984. 
Scientists from the NMML are continuing the research 

programs initiated in 1978 under the MOU and the MMPA general 

permit. In 1984, a U.S. biologist was on board each of the 

Japanese salmon motherships to collect bilolog ical samples and 

data from all incidentally taken marine mammals returned to the 

motherships. Japanese nationals collected samples from 

porpoises taken north of the FCZ. .A stud:y was made in Prince 

William Sound, Alaska and offshore waters of the Western North 

Pacific on the response of Dall's porpoise to a survey 

vessel. This field work is part of a study begun in 1982 to 

better determine the population abundance. 

Northern Fur -- Seals. Under 1983 amendments to the Fur Seal 

Act, the Federal Government has been relieved of many 

responsibilities in the Pribilof Islands. However, 

responsibility for administration of seal rookeries and 

oversight of the annual seal harvest: remains with NMFS. The 

Pribilof Islands Program, which was responsible for 

administration of the Pribilofs including fur seal management, 

was phased out in 1984 and the remaining fur seal management 

responsibilities were transferred from the NMFS Northwest 

Region to the Alaska Regional Office. 

During 1984, the harvest was carried out under contract 

with the Tanadgusix Corporation. Based on a recommendation by 

the North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, the Department of 

Commerce set a cap of 22,000 on the harvest. During the fiveweek harvest period, 22,066 seals were taken. Almost all were 

2 to 5 year old subadult males. 

The moratorium on commercial seal harvesting continued on 

St. George Island where 350 subadult male seals were taken 

during the subsistence harvest which is al.lowed on the 

Island. Several thousand pounds of seal meat resulting from 

the St. Paul Island harvest were shipped t.o St. George Island 

to supplement this take. 

Biological information collected by the NMML on fur seals 

of the Pribilof Islands of St. Paul and St. George included 

determining the age of fur seals harvested, the number of adult 

males on the rookeries and hauling grounds, and the number of 

pups and older seals that died on the rookeries and adjacent 

beaches. In 1984, approximately 173,100 pups were born on St. 

Paul Island. 

Behavioral research on St. George Island continued to 

emphasize key behavioral parameters associated with changes in 

adult sex ratio. A new study on the relationship of adult 
males to pups was begun, and surveys were made to determine the 

number of adult females entangled in fishing debris. A study 

on the behavior of nonbreeding adult males was begun and a 

study of female gregariousness and agression was completed. 

More measurements were made of diving behavior. Juvenile males 

were censused weekly. Over 100 adult females were marked for a 

study of pregnancy and mortality rates. 

In 1984, the Humane Society of the Unilced States, on 

behalf of several other groups, petitioned NMFS to add the 

North -Pacific fur seal to the U.S. List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. In response, NMFS reviewed the status of 

the fur seal to determine if the petitioned action was 

warranted. Based on that review, current population estimates, 

and the implementation of various Federal and international 

measures to conserve the species, NMF8 determined that the 

proposal to list the North pacific fur seal as a threatened 

species is not warranted at this time, 

Southwest Region - (Management) - 

Southwest Fisheries Center (Research) 

Porpoise* Taken Incidentally in the Yellowfin Tuna 

Fishery. During 1984, the ~outhwesttegion fielded 27 

tuna/porpoise observer cruises aboard commercial tuna purseseine vessels. Of these, sixteen were fielded through the 

porpoise/tuna research program of the Inter--American Tropical 

Tuna Commission (IATTC), and 11 were fielded by NMFS. Legal 

complications early in the year reduced the expected number of 

observer trips. 

The Region made net and gear inspections aboard 42 U.S. 

tuna seiners to ensure the presence of porpoise safety gear. 

Assistance was also provided in the alignment of newly- 

*NMFS uses the term porpoise, rather than dolphin, to 

prevent confusion with the dolphin fish, an object of sport 

and commercial fishing. However, the common name 'is used when 

discussing individual species or stoclts such as an eastern 

spinner dolphin. 
installed aprons for two vessels working out of San Diego in 

conjunction with IATTC and Porpoise Rescue Foundation 

personnel. The Region held Tuna Seiner Operator's Workshops 

fox: eight skippers and issued 71 Operator's and 34 Vessel 

Certificates. 

The Center continued its tuna-porpoise research program 

which is concerned with understanding the population biology of 

porpoises associated with the U.S. purse-seine fishery for 

tunas in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). The Center 

con~pleted a review of the research related to the status of 

stocks of porpoise and planning for an expanded program to 

morlitor their abundance using research ve:;sels and aircraft. A 

tot.al of 27 manuscripts documenting results of analyses and 10 

reports of panel meetings were completed. 

In its 1984 reauthorization of the MMPA, Congress called 

for an expanded stock monitoring program. The Center is 

designing a program to use research ships to collect data for 

monitoring population size. Factor:; addressed in developing 

the design include season, survey area, stlratification of area, 

and allocation of searching effort t:o strata. The number of 

ships required, use of helicopters t:o augment data collect ion 

and interpretation, and consistency of survey methods are being 

considered. Analytical models incorporating these factors are 

being developed and used to determine levels of precision 

required to detect different levels of population decline. W 

review panel of scientists from the Marine Mammal Commission, 

the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Con~mission, the Porpoise 

Rescue Foundation, the Environmental. Defense Fund, and North 

Carolina State University, assisted the Center in reviewing the 

results of models. Based on the panel's advice, the Center 

will prepare a design for monitorinc~ ETP clolphin stock 

abundance with research vessels. 

Biological research on ETP dolg~hins continues on age 

determination and growth, r e p r o d u c t i o n , bioenergetics and stock 

structure. The validity of growth layer groups in teeth is 

being tested using known age and tetracycline labeled 

specimens. Teeth from females are kleing examined for 

parturition marks and other layers that might be used to 

estimate frequency of pregnancy. The possibility of 

segregation of spotted dolphins into juvenile breeding school^ 

is being investigated by examining age, sex and color patterns 

in sample schools. Computer simulation models are being 

developed to compare the bioenergetics of spotted dolphin and 

yellowf in tuna in the ETP as part oE an investigation to 

identify the basis for the tuna-dolphin association and work is 
progressing using mitochondria1 DNA sequences to study 

structures of racial stocks of ETP dolphins. 

Bottlenose Dolphin. The Center continued population 

studies on 240 bottlenose dolphins that inhabit the waters 

offshore San Diego county. d an^ of the individual dolphins are 

recognizable from distinctive scar patterns on their dorsal 

fin. Using this trait, a study on the schooling behavior of 

the animals was completed during April 1984 in cooperation with 

student interns from Southhampton College, New York. An 

extension of this study in cooperation with San Diego State 

Univers i ty addresses possible exchanqe be tween bottlenose 

dolphins of northern Baja California,, Mexico and southern 

California. 

In June 1984, the Center held a workshop on the status of 

bottlenose dolphins off southern California. Participants 

included researchers, managers, and other interested 

individuals from both private and government organizations. A 

report on the workshop proceedings is in preparation. 

Harbor Porpoise. The Center organized a cooperative 

harbor porpoise survey with the National Misrine Mammal Lab, the 

~out.hwe&t Kegion, and-the California Department of Fish and 

Game. The survey was made using the NOAA vessel, David Starr 

-- Jordan, and a State-owned aircraft. The -- Jordan operated one to 

two miles from the coast searchina - from Point Conception, 

California to the Canadian border. The aircraft operated 

closer to shore surveying much of the same area as the 

-- Jordan. About 300 schools of harbor porpoise were observed. A 

report of results of the survey is in prepisration. A second 

survey is planned for 1985. 

Humpback Whale. The Southwest Region is responsible for 

humpback whales when they winter in the Hawaiian Islands. A 

Notice of Interpretation issued by the Region in 1979 for the 

"taking by harassment" of humpback whales in the Hawaiian 

Islands remains in effect. NMFS enforcement agents monitored 

wha1.e watching and research activities around Maui , and press 

releases issued on all of the main islands included guidelines 

for humpback whale watching. 

As part of the management program for humpback whales, the 

Region's Western Pacific Program Office (Honolulu) conducted 

consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Federal projects were reviewed and recommendations were made to 

ensure that associated activities would not jeopardize the 

continued existence of humpback whales. 
Pilot Whale. Since there is an occasional incidental take 

of pilot whales during the commercial fishery for squid off 

southern California, the Center continued a monitoring program 

started in 1980. The Center complet.ed two aerial surveys and 

one vessel survey directed at assessing interactions of pilot 

whales around Santa Catalina Island. The vessel survey 

resulted in only one sighting of ten animals. Aerial surveys 

resulted in one sighting of 12 animals during December, and 

three sightings totaling 58 animals during January. The 

University of California at Santa Cr-uz, under contract to the 

Center, studied movement patterns artd reproductive behavior of 

the pilot whales around Santa Catalina Island. This study 

which uses markings on individual animals as natural tags 

should be completed in 1985. 

Seals and Sea Lions--California. Coast.. The California 

Department of Fish and Game, under contrack to the Southwest 

~egion and Fisheries Center, continued to assess the status of 

the harbor seal population in California, the mortality of 

marine mammals in commercial fisheries, and the effectiveness 

of several non-lethal harassment devices designed to reduce 

marine mammal-f isheries interactions. NMF'S will use data from 

the harbor seal population surveys to assess the status of this 

population. 

Legislation establishing the Channel Islands National Park 

instructed the Departments of Interior and Commerce to 

cooperate in the Park planning processes that concern marine 

mammals, and also directed them to cooperate in the development 

of a Natural Resources Study. The Region and the Center have 

developed management and research plans for pinniped 

populations in the Park in consultation with the National Park 

Service, the State of California, and the Office of Coastal 

Zone Management. A report on the status of the pinniped 

populations in the Park, including a discussion of population 

dynamics, management concerns, in£ ormation needs, and an 

updated literature review was prepared by the Region as the 

NMFS contribution to the National Park Service Second Biennial 

Report to Congress on the status of the natural resources in 

the Park. 

The Region analyzed the literature from 1850 to the 

present to describe long-term trends in thle use and location of 

California and northern sea lions rookeries in the southern 

California Right. The analysis will be used to monitor and 

assess trends in sea lion distribution. 
The Center continued to participate in a cooperative study 

of coastal populations of pinnipeds. This research includes 

monitoring trends in population levels and assessing the impact 

of the incidental kill of marine mammals in commercial 

fisheries. During June and July, counts of pups were completed 

at all major rookeries; about 900 pups were sexed, tagged, and 

weighed, and during September samples were collected to analyze 

food habits. Also, procedures to keep pinn~ipeds from taking 

fish caught by recreational and commercial fishermen were tested 

using acoustic devices and fish laced with a chemical emetic. 

Harbor Seals. Under a contract from the Region and Center, 

the CDFG surveyed the California coast and offshore islands to 

census harbor seals. Since previous studies indicated that the 

greatest number of harbor seals was observed along the coast 

during the June molting season, the survey was conducted at that 

time. Counts from photographs were verified by comparison with 

counts made by shore-based observers statiolned at haul-outs 

along the coast. The 1984 estimate of the California population 

was over 18,200 animals, comparable to estimates made in each of 

the past three years. 

A study to determine movement patterns and effects of 

disturbance by vessels on haul-out behavior of harbor seals was 

begun in June 1984. At Santa Rosa Island, 12 harbor seals were 

captured and tagged with radio transmitters. 

- Northern Elephant Seals. The Center conducted research on - - - - --- 

northern elephant seals atxan Clemente and Santa Barbara 

Islands, at San Nicolas Island (in ccoperation with Hubbs-Sea 

World Research Institute), and at San Miguel Island (in 

cooperation with HSWRI and NMML). Additionial work was 

conducted at the Farallon Islands through a contract to the 

Point Reyes Bird Observatory. At each of the rookeries, pup 

counts were made in February and March to monitor changes in 

population levels. Also, animals were tagged to determine 

movements and estimate various life history parameters. About 

1,700 pups were tagged at the four major Southern California 

rookeries. Researchers collected stomach contents of elephant 

seals on San Miguel Island for a food habits study. 

-- Guadalupe Fur Seal. In January 1985, NMFS proposed to 

list the Guadalupe fur seal as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act. NMFS will evaluate the commenits received 

regarding this proposal and plans to make a final listing 

determination in 1985. 
Hawaiian Monk Seal. The Southwest Rlegion is implementing 

a Recovery Plan for the monk seal that was prepared under a 

requirement of the Endangered Species Act. NMFS has proposed 

to designate as critical habitat all beaclh areas, lagoon 

waters, and ocean waters out to a depth of 10 fathoms around 

Kure Atoll, Midway Islands (except :Sand Island), Pearl and 

Hermes Reef, Lisianski Island, Laysan Island, French Frigate 

Shoals, Gardner Pinnacles, Necker I:;land, and Nihoa Island. A 

final decision will be made in 1985. 

The Region's Western Pacific Pirogram Office consulted with 

other Federal agencies to ensure that Federal projects and 

associated activities would not jeopardize the continued 

existence of Hawaiian monk seals. 

Research on the Hawaiian monk seal is carried out by the 

Honolulu Laboratory of the Southwesi: ~isheries Center. In 

1984, pups were tagged at all northwestern Hawaiian Island 

locations as part of a continuing study of age-specific 

survivorship, age at first reproduction, and inter-atoll 

movement. First-year survivorship was 88 percent at Lisianski 

Island and about 90 percent at Laysan Island. 

At Kure Atoll, six pups (including two females) were 

born. The two female pups were maintained throughout the 

summer in a protective enclosure in the "headstart" program 

which was initiated in 1981. Resightings of these females and 

other females previously maintained confirmed that 9 of 10 were 

alive at the end of the year. The four male pups were tagged 

and released, and one was found dead in November. 

In 1984, underdeveloped pups were collected for the first 

time from French Frigate Shoals for rehabilitation and release 

at Kure. Underdevelopment may result from1 an exchange of pups 

of disparate ages between nursing females. Six of these pups, 

some as small as one-third of normal weaning weight, were 

temporarily maintained at the Waikiki Aquarium or the Honolulu 

Laboratory's Kewalo Research Facility. One has been released, 

four are currently being screened for parasites and diseases, 

and one animal died due to a severe heart defect. 

At Laysan Island, the Center identified males responsible 

for attacks on adult female and immature seals. In October, 

nine males were removed from Laysan and taken to Johnston 

Atoll, about 600 miles south of Laysan. These animals were 

bleached and tagged so they will be identifiable should they 

return to the Northwestern Hawaiian 1:slands. 
The number of seals at French Frigate Shoals are no longer 

increasing; however, the number using Tern Island continues to 

increase although successf ul pupping has not occurred there. 

In January 1984, several emaciated juvenile seals were found 

dead, suggesting that some young seals may find insufficient 

food to survive the post-weaning period when they are learning 

to feed. 

Midway Island Wildife Management. The Region has agreed 

with the Navy (which operates a ~ava-i. Air Facility at Midway 

Island) and the Fish and Wildlife Service to cooperate with one 

another in manay ing wildlife resourct?s at Midway Island. 

Species under NMFS jurisdiction include the Hawaiian monk seal 

and bottlenose and spinner dolphins, 

- Entanglement Workshop. NMFS co--sponsored a workshop held -- in Honolulu in November 1984 to examine the problem of marine 

mammals, birds, turtles and fish becoming entangled in lost and 

discarded fishing year and other debris. 

The Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris was 

organized under the leadership of the Director of NMFS' 

Honolulu Laboratory. The workshop reviewed the existing 

conventions, laws and regulations that could provide a legal 

framework for dealing with the problem. Papers were presented 

on the source and quantification of rnarine debris; its impact 

on marine mammals; and the fate of marine debris in the world's 

oceans. A fourth session focused on identifying management 

needs. The participants in the four working groups met to 

discuss the issues presented in the papers and agreed that a 

serious problem exists which is affecting marine organisms 

throughout the world. Also, they concluded that a variety of 

scientific, technical, legal, and procedural act ions can be 

taken to address the issues. The workshop proceedings, 

including recommendations made by the working groups, will be 

published in the spring of 1985. 

Other sponsors included the Mar:~ne Mammal Commission, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, Pacific Sea 

Grant College Programs, and the Western Pacific Fishery 

Management Council. 
Southeast Reg ion - - - -- ( Management) -- 

Southeast Fisheries Center (Research) 

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin. E1ottlenose dolphins are 

taken from a number of localities along th~e southeastern coast 

of the United States for public disgllay artd scientific 

research. To assure that these live-captuires and removals do 

not have a significant adverse effect on local populations or 

the species as a whole, NMFS limits the number of animals that 

can be taken from given areas. 

The Southeast Region regulates the taking of these 

dolphins under permits. Permit holders must coordinate all 

takings with the Regional Director. Taking is only authorized 

from areas where populations have been assessed and when there 

are sufficient numbers to allow a quota. Permit holders may 

collect in these areas when authorization has been granted by 

the Regional Director and only until the following quotas are 

reached. 

Mississipi Sound 35 

Indian/Banana River Complex (Florida) 6 

Texas Coas t-Corpus Christi/Matagorda Bay 17 

West Coast of Florida (between Crystal River 

and Charlotte Harbor, including Tampa Bay) 23 

Florida Panhandle (between Crystal River west 

to Mobile Bay, Alabama) 10 

The number of bottlenose dolphins rem~oved during any 

calendar year cannot exceed two percent of the minimum 

population in a specific location. 

The Southeast Fisheries Center ,sssess~es and monitors the 

status of local populations or subpoj?ulations from which 

removals are made. The goals of the Center's research on 

bottlenose dolphins are (1) to provide estimates of the 

abundance and live-capture quota recommends t ions for the 

stock(s); (2) to determine the dynamics and discreteness of 

along-shore and inshore-offshore populations; and (3) to 

determine the validity of the 2 percent li-ve-capture quota 

rule. One of the Center's research programs is designed to 
determine ~hether the authorized rem.ova1 olf 35 animals will 

have any effect on the ratio of marked to unmarked dolphins 

seen during monthly boat surveys of a designated capture area 

in Mississippi Sound. If the ratio increa.ses, it will indicate 

that there is a relatively discrete bottlenose dolphin 

population in the area, that annual removal of 35 or more 

animals could result in a serious population decline, and that 

the authorized level of take should be further limited. 

Northeast Region (Management) 

Northeast Fisheries --- Center (R.esearch) 

Whale Watching. The Region is concerned about increased 

commercial and recreational vessel activity in the vicinity of 

endangered whales. The rapid increase in whale watching 

activities in New England waters and the accompanying potential 

for adverse effects to endangered species and their environment 

is being addressed through management, enforcement, and 

research .efforts. In coordination with whale watch industry 

representatives, scientists, and environmental organizations, 

the Region has developed and distributed whale watch guidelines 

for specific use in New England waters. A,lso, the Region and 

Center will publish a brochure that includes NMFS' whale watch 

guidelines. The brochures will be given to private boaters, 

whale watchers, and the general public. Stelected use of 

enforcement efforts and investigation of research methods to 

determine the cumulative effect of these activities on marine 

mammals will complete the coordinated approach to this problem. 

Whale Research. The Northeast Region1 and Center and the 

Southeast Region and Center are developing a joint marine 

mammal research plan for large whales based on research and 

management needs shared between the two regions. These efforts 

will guide future coordinated research efforts on large whales 

in the two Regions. 

In February 1985, the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) and 

the Northeast Region sponsored a workshop to assess and 

describe research and management needs and priorities for right 

whales in the western North Atlantic Ocean,. Participants 

identified the steps necessary to fill data gaps and reduce 

potential threats from human activities and monitor the size, 

growth, and essential habitats of this pop~ulation of right 

whales. The Commission will develop a man~agement/research plan 
which will m used by NMFS to set prioritiles and coordinate 

research needs and efforts for the recoverly of the right whale 

and to guide other Federal agencies in carrying out their 

responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. 

The Center funded several marine mammisl studies including 

the following: 

Whales 

o Collection of skin samples to determine the sex 

and population discreteness of humpback whales in 

the North Atlantic. 

o The continued use of Northeast: Fisheries Center 

ships as a platform of opportunity for observers 

from the Manomet Bird 0bservat:ory to gather and 

maintain seabird, marine mammal, and sea turtle 

sightings of all species between Nova Scotia and 

Cape Fear, North Carolina. 

Collection and maintenance of a humpback whale 

fluke photographic catal.ogue to identify 

individual animals. 

A review of 26 years of observation data on marine 

mammals. This analysis will compare present day 

large cetacean behavior to vessel (e.g., whale 

watching, fishing, merchant, etc.) traffic and 

human activity to past tehavioral responses. From 

these observations, it may be possible to better 

understand the behavior of whales when they are 

near vessels and to predict the future effects of 

human activities on marine mammal populations. 

Aerial photographs to estimate right whale 

population size and residency times in the Great 

South Channel, Gulf of Maine. The Great South 

Channel is believed to be one of the main migration 

corridors used by right whales entering the Gulf of 

Maine in the spring. 

Studies to define the habitats most used by right 

and humpback whales in the Cape Cod Bay/Stellwagen 

Bank region. These areas will be surveyed to 

determine the biological, chemical, and physical 

characteristics that make these areas preferred by 

right and humpback whales. Social interact ions, 

sex ratios, and cow/calf pairs will be documented. 
An analysis of 500 hours of observations collected 

from Mount Desert Rock in the Gulf of Maine on 

resp~ rdt ion rates of undisturbed baleen whales. 

A documentation of the incidental take of harbor 

porpoise in New England groundfish gillnets and an 

evaluation of the economic loss to fishermen and 

means for reducing conflj-cts. This study, taking 

place in the Gulf of Maine, will1 also include 

examining incidentally taken animals to determine 

age, sex, reproductive condition, food habits, and 

parasite loads. 

------- Seals and Sea Lions 

o Continuing study by the University of Maine on 

marine mammals/fishery interactions in the Gulf of 

Maine. Researchers will assess the impact of the 

incidental take of harbor seals in New England 

groundfish gillnets. Dead animals will be 

examined to determine their biological 

characteristics, and means of reducing conflicts 

will be evaluated. 

Aerial surveys of the overwintering harbor seal 

population in Southern New Englland waters. 

Researchers at the Manomet Bird Observatory will 

use these population counts to assess population 

changes and consumption ~!s timates. 
Whale watchers view a humpback whale on Stellwagen Bank 

off Gloucester, Mass. Photo by Mason Weinrich, Cetacean 

Research Unit, Gloucester Fishermen's Museum. 
PART IV 

APPENDIX 
TABLE 1: 1985 GENERAL PEWIT M WALL TAKES-M)+(EFCIAL FISHIffi IHCIDLNTAL TAKES-REWESTS AH) AUTITHO\IZATIW 

-- FCZ/Appllcant/Category ( marl l dae I ( Phoc I dae I Cetacoa ( Total 1 

ATLMI C OCEAN ( Northern 

(Inside U.5. FZC1 ( realloo 

NDrthsrn 

iur seal 

Elephant I < seal I ( 

( - 1 ( ) ( ( 1 

(Requetad Authwzled Rwuestd AutMrlzed Requerted AuthOTl Zed1 (Requested Authorlzd Requested Authorl zed) (RbqueStM Author1 zed1 1Rwmt.d ALRhOTIzd) 

hstlc-Uenhaden Purse 

Selners ST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 53 50 55 

Japan I 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 20 15h/ 39 20 

- Portuga I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 ZO 0 0 20 %' 40 10 

-- Sveln I 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 5 0 0 20 "w 40 I5 

---- Italy I 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 5 0 0 20 l5g 40 m 

U.S.S.R. 

---- --. I 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 10 I5 15 'On/ ----- PKIFIC OCEAN 

(Inrlde U.S. FCZI 

Japan 

Deepsba I 90 90 5 5 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 

45 

I I5 

mkuten I 45 5 5 J Y o 0 0 0 

I15 

55 55 

Longl Ins V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H 0 0 

pSalnon v 25 25 450 450 0 0 0 D 0 0 5.600 5,MOd_/ 6.075 5,975 - - -- - Republlc of Korea I 100 95 0 5 0 0 100 23 0 0 50 %I 

--- 

2% IM 

-- - -- - -- - -- -- -- - Portugal I 40 40 0 0 0 0 m a 0 0 20 80 2% ea ------------ 

Poland I 9a 40 0 0 0 0 70 I5 0 0 55 206_/ 215 7 5 - 

U.S.S.R. I 55 55 0 0 I> I5 45 45 0 0 M SO -- 125 I25 

- -- ---- Totals 5.005 2,500 505 510 1,850 1,850 3,015 2,285 60 60 6,080 5.779 14.515 12,980 

PacIfIC Psclfl~ Pacltlc Paclflc Pscltl~ PScltlC PaClflC Pecltl~ 

5 0 185 103 415 3% 601 46 I 

Atlsnt lc Mlent lc Atlantlc Atlantlc 

----- Atlantic Atlanttc Atlsntlc Attantlc 

mlTES 

- a/ Dall's porpolss. harbw porpolse, and bsluga .hale. A/ Total cetacean take by a1 I permit holders flshlng In the North Atlontlc Ocean may not exced 622 carrrn 

- b/ PI lot whale., (W). hsrbw porpoise 101, Oal 1's porpolse (4), dOlPhlns. 711 Atlantlc rhttellded bolphlns. M5 hark pDTpoIsm, 338 Stenella spp., 248 pllot .hales, 

cmwn (51, rhlteslaed (5) and bottlenosed ODlphlns (51. 234 grampus, I72 bottlenose dolphlos. and 4 bald whales. 

- c/ Pllot whales (101, harbor pffpolsa (01, Dall's Porpafse (10) h/ Pllot whales (5). barb porpoise (5). end AtlanTIc whlteslded dotphlns (51. 

end rhtteslded dolphins (101. 

d/ Dall's porpolse. H- Harassmnt Only. - 

e/ Except harbor parpolse. ST- Small Take Emptlon. 

- t/ Harbor pcrpolse. 

HIFS:F/MII;Yay 1985 
TABLE 2 

CO??YCS AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF 3ARINE MAMMALS INVOLVED IN 

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH/PUBLIC DISPLAY PSRMLT APPLICATIONS 

COXXON NAME 

----------- 

CETACEAN S 

----.----- 

SCIENTIFIC FAME -------,-------- 

ATLANTIC BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN 

ATLANTIC SPOTTED DOLPSIN 

ATLANTIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN 

BAIRD'S BEAKED WHALE 

BLACK RIGHT WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT 

BLAINVILLE'S BEAKED WHALE 

BLUE WHALE 

BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS 

BOTTLENOSE WHALES 

BOWHEAD WHALE 

bRYDE'S VHALE 

COMMERSON'S DOLPHIN 

COMMON DOLPHIN 

CUVIER'S BEAKED WHALE 

DALL'S PORPOISE 

DUSKY DOLPHIN 

DWARF SPERM WHALE 

FALSE KILLER WHALE 

FIN WHALE, FINBACK 

FINLESS PORPOISE 

FRANCISCANA 

FRASER'S (SARAWAK) DOLPHIN 

GINKGO-TOOTHED BEAKED WHALE 

GRAY WHALE 

GRAY'S BEAKED WHALE 

HARBOR PORPOISE 

HEAVTS IDE'S DOLPHIN 

HUBPS' BEAKED WHALE 

HUMPBACK WHALE 

KILLER WHALE 

LAGENORHYNCHINE DOLPHINS 

LONG-FENXED PILOT WnALE 

MELON-HEADED WHALE, ELECTRA 

MINKE WHALE 

NARWHAL 

NORTHERN BOTTLENOSE WHALE 

NORTHERN RIGHT WHALE DOLPHIN 

PACIFIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN 

PILOT WHALES UNSPECIFIED 

PYGMY KILLER WHALE 

PYGMY RIGHT WHALE 

PYGMY SPERM WHALE 

RIGHT WHALES UNSPECIFIED 

RISSO'S DOLPHIN, GRAMPUS 

ROUGH-TOOTHED DOLPHIN 

TURSICPS 'L"ni3NCA'TUs 

STENEL5A PLAGXODON 

LAGENOSHYNCHUS ACUTUS 

BXRARDIUS BAIBDII 

RALAENA GLACIALIS 

MXSOPLODON nENSIROSTRIS 

BALAEXOPTERA MUSCULUS 

TURSIOPS SP. 

HYPEROODON SP. 

BALAEIIA MYSTICETUS 

BALAENOPTERA EDEN1 

CEPHALORHYNCHUS COMMERSONII 

DELPHINUS DELPHIS 

ZIPHIUS CAVIROSTRIS 

PHOCOENOIDES DALLI 

LAGENORHYNCHUS OBSCURUS 

KOGIA SIMUS 

'PSEUDORCA CRASSIDENS 

BALAENOPTERA PHYSALUS 

NEOPHOCAENA PHOCAENOIDES 

PONTOPOZIA SLAINVILLEI 

LAGENODELPEIS HOSE1 

MESOPLODON GINKGODENS 

ESCHRICHTIUS KOBUSTUS 

MESOPLODON GRAY1 

PHOCOENA PHOCOEMA 

CEPHALORHYNCHUS KEAVISIDII 

MESOPLODON CARLHUBBSI 

MEGAPTERA NOVAENMGLIAE 

ORCINUS ORCA 

LAGENORHYNCHUS SP. 

GLOBICEPHALA MEZAENA 

PEPGNOCEPHALA ELZCTRA 

BALAENOPTERA ACUTOROSTRATA 

MONODON MONOC EROS 

HYPEROODON AMPULLATUS 

LZSSODELPHTS BOREALIS 

LAGENORHYNCHUS OBLIQUIDENS 

GLOBICEPHALA SPa 

FRRESA ATTENUATA 

CAPEREA MARGINATA 

KOGIA BREVICEPS 

BALAENA SP. 

GRAMPUS GRISEUS 

STENO BREDANENSIS 
TABLE 2 Continued 

CETACEASS --------- 

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

----------- 

SEI WHALE 

SHEPHERD'S BEAKED WHALE 

SHORT-FINNED PILOT WHALE 

SOUTHERN RIGHT WHALE 

SPERM WHALE 

SPINNER DOLPHIN 

SPOTTED DOLPHIN 

SPOTTED DOLPHIN 

STENELLINE DOLPHINS 

STRAP-TOOTHED WHALE 

STRIPED DOLPHIN, STREAKER 

TRUE'S BJAKED WHALE 

UNSPECIFIED CETACEANS 

UNSPECIFIED TOOTHED WHALES 

VAQUITA, COCHITO 

WHITE WHALE, BELUKHA 

WHITE-BEAKED DOLPHIN 

BALAENOPTERA BOREALIS 

TASMACETUS SHEPHERD1 

GLOBICEPHALA MACRORHYNCHUS 

BALAENA AUSTRALIS 

PHYSETER MACROCEPHALUS 

STENELLA LONGIROSTRIS 

STENELLA ATTENUATA 

STENELLA FRONTALIS 

STENELLA SP. 

MESOPLODON LAYARDII 

STENELLA COERULEOALBA 

MESOPLODON MIRUS 

CETACEA 

ODONTOCETI 

PHOCOENA SINUS 

DELPHINAPTERUS LEUCAS 

LAGENORHYNCHUS ALBIROSTRIS 

AMSTERDAM ISLAND FUR SEAL 

ARCTOCEPHALINE FUR SEALS 

ATLANTIC HARBOR SEAL 

BAIKAL SEAL 

BEARDED SEAL 

CALIFORNIA SEA LION 

CASPIAN SEAL 

CRABEATER SEAL 

DUGONG 

GRAY SEAL 

HARBOR SEALS. 

HARP SEAL, GREENLAND SEAL 

HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL 

HOODED SEAL, BLADDERNOSE SEAL 

KERGUELEN FUR SEAL 

LARGHA SEAL, SPOTTED SEAL 

LEOPARD SEAL 

NORTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL 

NORTHERN FUR SEAL 

NORTHERN SEA LION, STELLER SEA LION 

PACIFIC HARBOR SEAL 

RIBBON SEAL 

RINGED SEAL 

KOSS SEAL 

SOUTH AFRICAN FUR SEAL 

SOUTH AMERICAN SEA LION 

SOUTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL 

UNSPECIFIED MARINE MAMMALS 

UNSPECIFIED PINNIPEDS 

WALRUS 

WEDDELL SEAL 

WEST INDIAN MANATEE 

WESTERN ATLANTIC HARBOR SEAL 

ARCTOCEPHALUS TROPICALIS 

ARCTOCEPHALUS SP. 

PHOCA VITULINA VITULINA 

PHOCA SIBIRICA 

ERIGNATHUS BARB ATUS 

ZALOPHUS CALIFORNIANUS 

PHOCA CASPICA 

LOBODON CARCINOPHAGUS 

DUGONG DUGON 

HALICHOERUS GRYPUS 

PHOCA VITULINA 

PHOCA GROENLANDICA 

MONACHUS SCHAUINSLANDI 

CYSTOPHORA CRISTATA 

ARCTOCEPHALUS GAZELLA 

PHOCA LARGHA 

HYDRURGA LEPTONYX 

MIROUNGA ANGUSTIROSTRIS 

CALLORHINUS URSINUS 

EUMETOPIAS JUBATUS 

PHOCA VITULINA RICHARD1 

PHOCA FASCIATA 

PHOCA HISPIDA 

OMMATOPHOCA ROSS11 

ARCTOCEPHALUS PUSILLUS 

OTARIA FLAVESCENS 

MIROUNGA LEONINA 

UNSPECIFIED MARINE MAMMALS 

PINNIPEDIA 

ODOBENUS ROSMARUS 

LEPTONYCHOTES WEDDELLI 

TRICHECHUS MANATUS 

PHOCA VITULINA CONCOLOR 
TABLE 3 

SYNOPSIS OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS 

AS OF March 31, 1984 Aprfl 1, 1984 TO March 31, 1985 

SCIENTIFIC PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC AND SCIENTIFIC PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC AND AS OF March 31, 1985 

CUMULATIVE TOTAL 

-------------------- 

RESEARCH DISPLAY PUBLIC DISPLAY RESEARCH DISPLAY PUBLIC Df SPLAY 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS 

SUBMITTED 

NO. OF ANIMALS REQUESTED (TOTAL) 673,449 

OF THESE: 

TAKEN BY KILLING 23,172 

TAKEN AND KEPT ALIVE 419 

KILLED IN CAPTIVITY 4 9 

TAKEN AND RELEASED 554,526 

FOUND DEAD 3,674 

STRANDED/EXCHANGED 114 

IMPORTS 3,074 

HARA S S 88,421 

ACTION TAKEN 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS FORWARDED 

TO MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS REVIEWED 

BY MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS WITHDRAWN 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS REFERRED 

TO FISH AND WILDLIFE 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS REFERRED 

TO STATES 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS REFERRED 

TO REGIONS 

NO. OF APPLICATIONS RESOLVED 

THROUGH AGREEMENT un nm i nn~ -re r m-rna.0 nvmnnsron A,". VI c.L L ULUnI L"L.0 '.YLUA.',YY 

DUE TO INSUFFICIENT OR 

INAPPROPRIATE SUBMITTAL 

NO. OF APPLXCATIONS DENIED 

NO* OF APPLICATIONS APPROVED 

NU. Up APPLICATIUNS FENDING 

NO. OF ANIMALS APPROVED (TOTAL) 662,572 

OF THESE: 

TAKEN BY KILLING 21,655 

TAKEN AND KEPT ALIVE 389 

KILLED IN CAPTIVITY 4 9 

TAKEN AND RELEASED 552,767 

FOUND DEAD 2,937 

STRANDED /EXCHANGED 9 9 

IMPORTS 3,052 

HARASS 81,624 

NOTE: APPLICATIONS AND PERMITS INVOLVING HARASSMENT OF MARINE MAMMALS OR TAKING/IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS FOUND DEAD USUALLY 

DO NOT SPECIFY NUMBERS, AND THEREFORE ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE NUMBERS OF ANIMALS FOR THESE CATEGORIES. 
wz 

04E 4 

4 4 

WMel 

www 

w rrd IIIIIIII 

IIIIIIII 

IIIIIIII 

IIIIIIII 

IIIIIIII 

IIIIIIO 

Z 

o d 

r 

HW 

m 

H 

& 

E u 2; 

(4 

w cl 

m r 4 

H 0 3 .r 

0 4 xww 

I 

I I 

I I 

IVI 

1-1 

I I I 

I I I I 

IIII 

1111 

IIII 

IIII 

1111 

11-1 ~mo-lmlm~ml I l lm-m~10011-1rnmI IIP~I 1-1 I I 1-1 INOI 11 11-m I 1-1 1111 om IN~I I-UII -II~IIII II WI 81 11 - I I I 1111 3m I I I1 II I I I IIII I I I I - 1 I I I I II IIII I1 I I1 I1 1 I1 1111 3 I I1 1111 11 I I 11 I1 I I I I Ill1 I I I I I I1 Ill1 I1 I1 II 1111 I1 I 

I-N-P--NNIUI-~I 

1mmommmo1~1o~1~m1o1~m1m~100l0~-m0~11m00m0mh~om~1o1 ~I~IO~I~~I~~ION-~.-~~P-~-~Q~OQVI~I I ONU I P- I m I u I 0 l m~ l mm l O@ 1 4- CT ~OU* 0mb-0~ l co 1 I r I "I I I -1 I I - - ...r --I I I * lYIl I I I I Y) Ihl I 1-1 I I I 3 m -m~- 0.- I I 

I I I I I I I I 4 4 

om m I I I I 

U 

- w rcl P 

m z r 4e40 

r - zxuu 

z m HH ~~~IIIIIIIII~~~I~I~~IIIIII~~~II~IIIIIIIIIIIIIII o HH~U 

U V) 

H 1111111111l11111111lll1111111111111111l11111111 n~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 224 

C: w- 1111111111111111l111111111l11111l11l111l111l111 P-GP 

owo clw 1111111111111l11l1l11l11111111111l1111111111111 uo 

w U clP. l111111111111l111111ll1111111111111111111111111 nproz 

r a 16 H 4 POW4 

V) x YU cl h 

w 0' Udmm 

e zwuz OQ I I I m I I ~QNV I I m I e I I I N I I UNU I UNCON~ I wm I 4 I I o I I m I N o urn44 Q W & Z O * I1 1-1 ION 11-41 11 1-1 1- 1 b?- 

prl 0 W r> l lhl 1 11 I 111 I1 I 8 11 18 I 14 lUl lU*l ldlU 0 x w 

d a M o P. H III II II I III II I I I II II I N WPVIU 

m 4ZWcl 111 11 I1 1111 11 I I I I1 II I - 0244 

m 4 HdM4 111 I1 I1 I Ill II I I I II I1 I - Z 3r 

Z rl w 

4 m4ov 

w rww 

U w 11111011 I~IOIIIIIOIIIIIII~IIIII~IOOIOII~~IOOI~I m moro z z IIIIIP-11 I~I~IIIII~II 111 IIUIII IIVI--IPI INNIO~I~I Q urmm 4 wr~ 11111 111-I~IIIII 1111111 11111 I e sm$ 11111 Ill I Ill81 IIIIIII IIIII I I i~mmo-m~ I m 3 wm 

u 11111 111 I 11111 1111111 IIIII I I I INUI I lm WQN I I l ..-I 1 I - Q4P^ 

U e u Ill11 111 I IIIII IIIIIII 11111 I I I1 I I I M dnwo 

Ir WdV 

0 r r 

zmeL0 

d h WWWW 

w x x3mw 

m w muxm H mwaI4 

z a 4dZ3 

z H Z w 4 HZ 

Z D: ff 4mww 
COMMON NAME 

TABLE 5 

NUMBER OF PINNIPEDS REQUESTED IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH/PUBLIC DISPLAY PERMIT APPLICATIONS(1) 

REQUESTED 

AS OF March 31, 1984 

REQUESTED 

April 1, 1984 THRU March 31, 1985 

ARCTOCEPHALINE FUR SEALS 

BAIKAL SEAL 

BEARDED SEAL 

CALIFORNIA SEA LION 

CASPIAN SEAL 

CRABEATER SEAL 

GRAY SEAL 

HARBOR SEALS 

HARP SEAL, GREENLAND SEAL 

HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL 

KERGUELEN FUR SEAL 

LARGHA SEAL, SPOTTED SEAL 

LEOPARD SEAL 

NORTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL 

NORTHERN FUR SEAL 

NORTHERN SEA LION, STELLER SEA -LION 

RIBBON SEAL 

RINGED SEAL 

ROSS SEAL 

SOUTH AFRICAN FUR SEAL 

SOUTH AMERICAN SEA LION 

SOUTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL 

UNSPECIFIED MARINE MAMMALS 

UNSPECIFIED PINNfPEDS 

WAI.RTjS 

WEDDELL SEAL 

WEST INDIAN MANATEE 

TAKEN TAKEN C ttYYL((JLATTAKEN AND TAGGED OR FOUND TAKEN AND 'PAGCED OR POI!ND I Vt 

BY KEPT KILLED IN TAKEN AND DEAD/ BY KEPT KILLED IN TAKEN AND DEAD / TOfAl. 

KILLING ALIVE CAPTIVITY RELEASED STRND KILLING ALIVE CAPTIVITY RELEASED STRNn It+)"pSTl!D 

TOTALS : (2 ) 48,617 1,338 53 99,096 2,101 900 7 0 36,080 21 188,213 

(1) SPECIMEN IMPORTS AND HARASSMENT REQUESTS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS TABLE. 

(2) WHERE PERMIT APPLICANTS REQUESTED A TOTAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS TO BE TAKEN WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE NUMBER TO BE TAKEN FROM A 

PARTICULAR SPECIES, THE NUMBER REQUESTED WAS LISTED UNDER UNSPECIFIED PINNIPEDS OR UNSPECIFIED MARINE MAMMALS, IF CETACEANS 

ALSO WERE INVOLVED. 


SPECIES 

ATLANTIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN 

BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS 

COMMERSON'S DOLPHIN 

COMMON DOLPHf N 

DALL'S PORPOf SE 

FALSE KILLER WHALE 

FRASER'S (SARAWAK) DOLPHIN 

HARBOR PORPOISE 

KILLER WHALE 

LONG-FINNED PILOT WHALE 

MELON-HEADED WHALE, ELECTRA 

PACIFIC WHITE-SIDED DOLPHIN 

PYGMY KILLER WHALE 

RTSSO'S nnr.pn~~, CI?P_UPI_~~ 

ROUGH-TOOTXED DOLPHIN 

SHORT-PINNED PILOT WHALE 

SPINNER DOLPHIN 

SPOTTED DOLPHIN EPD tnan nnr p1f+xr nmn uAnL14~ UV~ LL~, OL~EAKER 

UNSPECIFIED CETACEANS 

WHITE WHALE, BELUKHA 

WHITE-BEAKED DOLPHIN 

TABLE 8 

SUMMARY OF PERMITS FOR PERMANENT REMOVAL FROM THE WILD - CETACEANS 

AS OF March 31, 1985 

ISSUED EXPIRED CURRENT REQUESTED AUTHORIZED REPLACEMENTS AUTHORIZATION TAKEN TAKE 

EXPIRED (1) REMAINING 

TOTAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS: 10,668 10,628 4 8 8,660 1,025 1, 079 

(1) ANIMALS TAKEN INCLUDE THOSE INADVERTENTLY KILLED DURING THE COURSE OF RESEARCH AUTHORIZING TYPES OF TAKE OTHER THAN PERMANENT 

R EM0 VAL. 
SPECIES 

ARCTOCEPHALINE FUR SEALS 

BAIKAL SEAL 

BEARDED SEAL 

CALIFORNIA SEA LION 

CASPIAN SEAL 

CRABEATER SEAL 

GRAY SEAL 

HARBOR SEALS 

HARP SEAL, GREENLAND SEAL 

HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL 

KERGUELEN FUR SEAL 

LARGHA SEAL, SPOTTED SEAL 

LEOPARD SEAL 

NORTHERN ELEPHANT SEAL 

NORTHERN FUR SEAL 

NORTHERN SEA LION, STELLER SEA LION 

RIBBON SEAL 

RINGED SEAL 

ROSS SEAL 

SOUTH AMERICAN SEA LION 

SOYTEE?.?? E?.E?K"EI??T SEAL 

UNSPECIFIED MARINE MAMMALS 

UNSPECIFIED PINNIPEDS 

WALRUS 

WEDDELL SEAL 

TABLE 9 

SUMMARY OF PERMITS FOR PERMANENT REMOVAL FROM THE WILD - PINNIPEDS 

AS OF March 31. 1985 

ISSUED EXPIRED CURRENT REQUESTED AUTHORIZED REPLACEMENTS AUTHORIZATION TAKEN TAKE 

EXPIRED (1) RF'IAINING 

TOTAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS: 13,302 13,293 16 2,128 2.910 A, 4 70 

(1) ANIMALS TAKEN INCLUDE THOSE INADVERTENTLY KILLED DURING THE COURSE OF RESEARCH AUTHORIZING TYPES OF TAKE OTHER THAN PERMANENT 

REMOVAL. 
Table 10. IKTERFtATIONAL WHALIffi COCMlSSlON CATCH LIMITS: 1973-1984' 

SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE NORTH PACIFIC NORTH ATLANT1 C TOTAL 

Fln Minke Sei Sperm Brydets Fln Mlnke Sel 6 Sel Bryde's Sperm Fln Minke Sel Sperm COmERClAL Other7 TOTAL 

(M) (F) Brydets (M) (F) Quo16 

1973/74 1,450~ 5,000~ 4,500~ 8.000 5,000 0 550 ..... 3,000 ........ 6,000 4,000 ................ 37,500 8,173 45.673 

1973 Mtg 

1974/75 1,000~ 7,000~ 4,000~ 8,000 5,000 0 300 ..... 2,000 ........ 6,000 4,000 ................ 37,300 5,173 42,473 

1974 Mtg 

1975/76 2202 6.810 2,230 5,870 4,870 0 0 .......... 0 1.363 5,200 3,100 365 2,550 ........ 32,578 1,358 33,936 

1975 Mtg 

1976177 0 8,900 1,863 3,894 897 0 0 541 ..... 0 1,000 4,320 2,880 455 2,483 132 685 28,OW 28,050 

I976 Mtg 

- --- 

1977/78 0 5,690 771 4,538 1,370 0 0 400 ..... 0 524 5,105 1,339 459 2,555 84 685 23,520 23,520 

1977 Mtg 

1979/80 0 8,102 0 ... 580... 2&l Ol,%I ..... 0 479 1,350 0 604 2,543 100 273 15,656 15,656 

1979 Mtg 

1980/8 1 0 7,072 0 ... 300... ~66~ 0 1,361 ..... 0 529 890 0 701 2,554 100 IM 14.523 14,523 

1980 Mtg 

- 

1981/82 0 8.102 0 ... -0. ... 86ij3 0 1,361 ..... 0 526 0 0 561 2,554 100 0 14,070 14,070~ 

1981 Mtg (13,448) 

1982/83 o 7.072 o .... 0. ... 165~ o 1.361 ..... o %a don) n 793 2.~~6 rn" n *2r31! !?,:'! 

1982 Mtg 

1983/84 0 6,655 0 .... 0 .... I6!j4 0 421' ..... 0 536 .. lo 0 287 1,226" 100 0 9,390 9.390 

1983 Mtg 

1984/85 ... 4,224 .... .... 0 .... 1644 .... 3209 .....,. 357 ......... 281 1,177" 100 ...... 6,623 6.625 

1984 Mtg 

11 Catch llmlts are for the Southern Hemisphere pelagic season (November of the year of the meeting through April of the fol lowlng year) and all coastal seasons of the year - fol towlng the meeting. The CmmisSion applies quotas to Coastal seasons fn the year whaling beglns. Therefore, e.g., the column labelled '*1980/8lW reports quotas for 

the 1980/81 Southern Hemisphere pelagic season and the 1981 coastal seasons, all of which were establlshed at the 1980 IW meetlng. 

- 2/ Catch llmlt covering Antarctic catch Only (South of 40' latitude). 

3/ Of thls flgure, 622 whales could not be taken legally by member countries due to the factory ship mratorlum and/or the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. 

- 4/ Available to be taken from the Peruvian stock In a 51%-mnth perlod starting In November but counted for the Season of the following year. 

5/ The Commission also agreed to a 1982 coastal season catch llmlt of 450. Both catch llmits include an allowable bycatch of up to 71.55 females. - 

6/ Although the Cmlsslon adopted no catch limit for the Northeastern stock, Norway limited catches to 1.690 as though the IhC had established thls limit. The number has - therefore been ret lected In the totals. 

- 7/ Whales taken by IWC members but not tncluded in the catch Ilmits. 

- 8/ The figure In Parentheses takes Into account the reduction discussed In footnote 3 as well as catch llmlts totalllng 151 North Atlantic tin whales for 1982 that were for 

stocks that had not been exploited since 1971. 

- 9/ The catch llmlts for the Sea of Japan-Yellow Sea-East Chlna Sea stock Is zero but footnoted In the Schedule to read, "provlded that the remainder from the prevlous block 

quota of 3,634 for the years 1980-1984, inclu~lv~, my be taken In the years 1984 and 1985." 

- 10,' The 1984 catch Iimlt, If any, wilt be set at the 1984 Annual Meeting. 

- I\/ Includes 300 whales from the West Greenland stock, some of whlch may be taken by aborlglnal subsistence whaling operatlons In Greenland. 
Table 11. POPULATION ESTIMTES: CETACEA 

- Name 

Order : Cetacea 

Suborder: Mysticeti 

Family: Eschrlchtiidae 

Estimated Canparison Arctic ( PAC1 FiC 1 ( ATLANT 1 C ( SOUTHERN OCEAN 1 

World of Population Clrcum- ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 

Total ~ata' potar ( Asla Alaska North South ) ( North Europe Africa South ) [ New Aus- Sub Ant- Ant- 1 

( her t ca Amer 1 ca (her I ca America) (Zealandtralia arctic wctlc) 

Grdy whale 15,100/ best 15,100/ 

(Eschrlchtius robustus) 15.600 15,600 

---- Family: Balaenopierfdae 

Winke whale 31 5,800/ 1 ncomp l ete 13,500 +' + + 44,000/ fib. 300 

(Ba laenoptera bcutorostrata) 33f,800 60,060 

-- -- -- <---- --- %I whale 33,800/ 1 ncomp I ete 22,000/37,000-----> + 2,000/ + + + g,sOa/ 

(Balaenoptera boreal f s) 5t ,400 2,600 11.800 

--a- - - -- Brydets whale 50,200 incmp lete !4,600/ + 15,600 + + + t + tBa l aenoptera den f ) 55,500 39,900 

Fln whale 1 17,600/ l ncmp l ete <----14,600/18,600-----> 3,600/ 12,000/ <---------- 6) 00+--------> 

(Balaenoptera physa i us 120,300 6,300 18,ooo 

Blue whale 1 1,700 1 ncmp I ete <--.-I----- 1,600--------> 100 + + + <---------- 10,0()0------..--> 

(88 l aenoptera firuscu 1 us) 

Humpback wha ie 9,500/ 1 ncomp I ete <---------I,LUU--------, . --- .. A ", J.WU -iuw rAl----_? cnnfx -,,-,,,s - * *--, - * """ 

(Megaptera novaeanqllael 10,000 hundredm 

faml ly: Balaenldae 

Rlght whale 3,tOO incomplete loo/ "few + + <----a-s---.. f ,OW--------> 

(Balaena 31aclaI Is) 3,200 200 hundred8B 

hwheaa whale 3,871 complete + 3,871 

'€lest = the most comprehensive estimates throughout the range of the specles. 

Cornptete = good populatlon estimates throughout the range of the species. 

Incmplete = population estimates only In parts of the range of the specles. 

2~lthough a populatlon occurs in this area, the numbers are either unknown or the data are not available. 
Table l l Continued. POPULATIOM ESTIHATES: CETACEA 

- bme Estl mat4 Comparison Arctic ( PACIFIC 1 ( ATLANTIC ) ( SWTHERN OCEAN 1 

Ckder: Cetacea World of Popuiatlon Clrcum- ( 1 ( 1 ( 

Suborder: Odontocetl Total Oatal polar ( Asla Alaska North South ) ( North Europe Afrlca South I ( New Aus- Sub Ant- AntFanl ly: Delphinldae ( her! ca America) (America herlca) (tealand tralln arctic erctlc) 

Atlantic whlte-slded dolphin no data incomplete 24,000 + 

(Lagenorhynchus acutus) 

Paclflc uhlte-sided dolphln no data incomplete t 30,000/ 

(Lagenorhynchus obLlquIdens) 50,000 

Northern rlght whale dolphln no data incomplete + + + 

(Lissodelphls boreal Is) 

Southern right whale dolphln no data incomplete + + + 

(Llssodelphls peronl I) 

Risso's dolphln no data Incomplete + + + + 10,000 + + + 

(Grampus griseus) 

Melon-headed whale no data incomplete t + 

(Peponoc-aphala electra) 

Pygmy ki l ler whale no data incomplete t + t + + + + 

(Fwresa attenuata) 

- False kll ler whale no data incomplete + + + + + + + + + 

(Pseudorca crass1 dens 

--*------- 

Long-f inned pl Lot whale no data Incomplete + + 

(Globicephala melaena) 

- Short-f Inned pl lot whale no data Incomplete + + + + + + 

(Globlcephala macrorhynchus) 

-- ",a,-- ...- .. .> 8 , 8 u, ",,U 8 - 9 ...... ,.- illj doto I,,.-",,," lUlU T T 7 * * * t 

(Orci nus orca) 

-- - Rough-toothed do1 ph t n no data incomplete t t + + t 

(Steno bredanens l s I -- - - - Bottlenose do1 phin no data incomplete + + + 14,000/ + t + 

(Turslops truncatus) 23.000 

. 

Splnner dolphln no data incompl ete + 900.000 + t + 

{Stenel la longlrostri~) 

-.-- .----- Spotted dolph In no data incomplete t 2.2 MI l 

[Stenel la attenuata) 

. 

Atlantic spotted dolphin no data incomplete + t + + 

[Stenet la plaglodon) 

- - ---- - - Strlped dolphin no data Incomplete t 2.3 Mi1 + 

(Stenel la ccmruteml ba) 

Cmn dotphln no data incomplete t 900,000 31,000 + + t t + + 

(Delphlnus detphls) 

Frassr's dolphin no data incomplete + + t 

(Lagenorhynchus - hose1 ) 

--- 

lPqd830+3~1/) sn lsnd I I (sn 

IeJ+sny uel An) lees s 

00O'OZ 000'058 . ede3 unos) (U=IJ)V Pue 000'0~8 duos I e+e 

lRqde30&3~v) sn leJ+sne (sl 

- - q4nos ueal~ewy ~n) lees 000'9vE I dwoau I e+e OOO'b6z 000'25 

lPqde30+3~y) sn (slsueo6edele6 000'5 000'5 

so6edeleg Jn) lees 1 ' 1000 ! dwau I e+e 1 /0OO1 

/cn~ dwoa 

--- 

I e~e IGOL unn? zeoueumi Jn? leas 

S0+3JR30qd) JeyOOq ( 

ees uo1l 000'9 000'9 s,JeyooH neN) (pueleez 

moqdoe~) --(eeJeUI> ooo'f OOO'C 

UOI IOOO'Z duo3 I -- /000'2 leJ+sny uel ees I 

1~~40) e (sueasehel) 

q+nos uesl~ewy ees 1 uol OOO'ELZ duo3 1 e+e 000‘812 000'Sb 

ldo+eun3) se (sn+eqn 000'0bZ 000'OE 

UJeq+Jw eeS UOl /OOO'OEZ duo> I /OOO'OZ 000'00~ 000'01 

snqdolez) lo3 1 IUJO) SnUR ( 

- 

lea ~IUJO)~ ees I uol OOO'LLI e+e1duo3 OOO'L51 000'0~ 

e3l~euy eal~ewv eal~ewy Jey 1 e3 pu~leez OI~OJ+ S~+~.JO JI@JO 

Ze+ea ~elod elsv eyselv 44.10~ q+nos U+JW edOJn3 ~31.14~ q+nos *e~ -snv qns -+uy -+uv e+ol I 

IJOM p )o uol+elndOd -wna~13 

I+Sj Pa+PW ~edU03 1 UOS 31+3JV 31413Vd 11NVllV 3 Ntl3HlnOS NV330 
Table 12 Continued, POPULATION ESTIMATES: PINNIPEDIA' 

- Name Estimated Comparl son Arctic PACIFIC ATLANT t C SOUTHERN OCEAN 

Order: Carnl vora World of Population CircumSuborder: Plnnlped I a Total kta2 polar Asia Alaska North South North Europe Afrlca South New Aus- Sub Ant- AntFarnil y: Otarl Idae Continued America Amerlca Amerlca Amer 1 ca Zealand tral la arctic arctic 

New Zealand fur seal 58,000 complete 25,000 33,000 

(Arctocepha I us forsterl 1 

Antarctic (Kerguelen) fur seal 350,000 comp 1 ete 350,000 

(Arctocepha I us gaze I la ) 

Subaniarctic fur seal 122,000 i ncomp I ete 113,000 9,900 

(Arctocephalus troplcal Is) 

---- Order: Carnl vora 

Suborder: Plnnlpedla 

Faml l y: Phoci dae 

- - - - - - . - . --- Largha seal 335,000/ 1 ncomp l ete 135,000/ 200,000/ 

(Phoca largha) 450,000 200,000 250,000 

- ---- Harbor (Common) seal 390,000/ incomplete 10,000/ 260,000 42,000 30,000/ 48,000/ 

(Phoca vitul lna) 413,500 15,000 45,000 51,500 

- --- -- -- -- Ringed seal 6/7 MI l lion best 6/ 7 

(Phoca i= pusal hlsplda) Mil lion 

- Balkal seal 40,000/ complete 40,000/ 

(Phoca sibirlca) 50,000 50,000 

Caspl as seal 

(Phoca casplca 

500,000 complete 

600,000 

Harp Seal 

(Phoca groenl and ice) 

1,650,000/ complete 

3,250,000 

1,050,000/ 600,000/ 

2.1 mil 1,150,000 

Ri bbon seal 200,000/ complete 200,000/ 

(Phoca I= hlstrlophocal fasclata! 250,000 250,000 

--- Gray seal 101,000/ complete 24 ,OOO/ 77 ,OOO/ 

(Hal ichoerus grypus) 133,000 55,000 78,500 
-. - - - - - -- 

se+ousAuo+dei) leppefi I I ( 

000'0~1 I~PP~M I lees OOO'OSL dm2 I e+e -- -- --- 

Q~J~JOAU\ (xAuo+de~ 

m'm p~edoel lees 000'005 duos l 848 - 

83oydo+e~~)) ISSOJ (I 

0DO'ozz ssoa toes OOO'OZZ duo3 I e+e - - - - - - 

w) 13~~3 (e6eqdou 

Je+eeqeJ3 lees 1 000'000'5 +=q 1 000'000'4 

e6uno~!w) (s~J+SOJ~+S~~UQ 

UJeq+JON +ueqdele leBS 000'001 4-q 1 000'00 

e6uno~lw) (ouluoel 

uJey+nog +ueqde(e tees '009 000 d~ I e+e OOO'OOE OOO'OOE 

snq3euow) (lpue~sulnoyss I 00s‘ I 00s' 

leMeH uel yuau lees /005 e+eldm= /005 

m) (slle~~doy ~oeu +aul+xe 

ueeqql~o3 yuau lees 14x8 +su JO +seg 

snqsouq) --(snq3ouw 

lpeW UPeU€?JJe+ XUOW lees 00s 4S.w 005 

IJ~) snq+eu6 (sn+eq~w 000'00s 000'005 

pepJoee lees speesxe 1 dw3u I e+e speesxe 
Gray whale flukes ... California coast. Phclto by Dana Seagars, Southwest Region, 

National Ma~rine Fisheries Service